Supreme Court of India
AJWARversusWASEEM AND ANOTHER R1: WASEEM R2: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 968
- Decided
- 29 July 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting bail without proper consideration of the earlier Supreme Court judgment and without sufficient new circumstances, and therefore set aside the bail order.
Summary
The appellant Ajwar filed a criminal appeal challenging a bail order granted by the Allahabad High Court to respondent No.1, Waseem, who had been repeatedly granted and then cancelled bail by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had earlier cancelled the bail on two occasions, directing that any future bail could be sought only upon the emergence of new circumstances. Waseem applied for fresh bail, claiming new circumstances such as prolonged custody, trial delays, and parity with co‑accused who were on bail. The High Court granted bail, relying on overcrowding in jails and alleged one‑sided police investigation, without adequately addressing whether the new circumstances met the Supreme Court’s criteria. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by not giving due deference to its earlier judgments and by failing to provide cogent reasoning on the alleged new circumstances. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the bail order, directed the respondent to surrender to the trial court, and ordered the trial to be expedited. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in granting bail to the accused despite the Supreme Court’s earlier cancellation and the requirement of "new circumstances".
- Whether the High Court’s reasoning, including reliance on jail overcrowding and alleged one‑sided investigation, was sufficient to justify bail.
- Whether the bail granted to the accused should be set aside in view of the Supreme Court’s earlier judgments and the nature of the offences.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 34, s. 352, s. 504
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the impugned order passed by the High Court granting bail to respondent no.1-accused. Headnotes† Bail – Cancellation of Bail – Supreme Court cancelled the bail of respondents-accused granted by the High Court to move for bail afresh in event of any new circumstances emerging at a later stage – Earlier also the High Court had granted bail and in appeal thereagainst this Court had remanded back the matter – In terms with the order passed by the Supreme Court, the respondent no. 1 applied
Subjects
BailCancellation of BailNew circumstances emerging at a later stageLimited window open in futuroOne sided investigation by policeIgnoring the case of accused sideOver-burdened docketJustification for formulaic justiceOvercrowding in jailsCustodyEnlarged on bailConclusion of the trialGround to allow bailFormulaic Justice
Judgment
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2062 : 2025 INSC 968
Ajwar
v.
Waseem and Another
R1: Waseem
R2: State of Uttar Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No. 3232 of 2025)
29 July 2025
[Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the impugned order
passed by the High Court granting bail to respondent no.1-accused.
Headnotes†
Bail – Cancellation of Bail – Supreme Court cancelled the
bail of respondents-accused granted by the High Court and
granted a window to move for bail afresh in event of any new
circumstances emerging at a later stage – Earlier also the
High Court had granted bail and in appeal thereagainst this
Court had remanded back the matter – In terms with the order
passed by the Supreme Court, the respondent no. 1 applied
for bail afresh – Trial Court rejected the same, however, the
High Court granted bail – Interference with:
Held: Scheme of the Constitution mandates that all Orders/
Judgments of this Court have to be given due deference to by all
other Courts, including the High Courts, in letter and in spirit – Both
the earlier Orders/Judgments cancelling bail to respondent no.1
would leave no doubt that this Court examined all material aspects –
Ultimately, this Court concluded that, in the circumstances, grant
of bail was unjustified, both on facts and in law, while keeping a
limited window open in futuro, which assumes significance yet was
not properly appreciated by the High Court – Considerations which
have weighed with the Single Judge while penning the impugned
order are disturbing – Observations such as ‘one sided investigation
by police’ and ‘ignoring the case of accused side’ besides being
thoroughly unwarranted, had absolutely no nexus with the prayer
for bail which the Single Judge was seized of – Given the heinous
nature of the alleged offences, it was not open to the High Court
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2063
Ajwar v. Waseem and Another
to make overcrowding in jails’ as a ground to allow bail – Further,
the impugned order notes certain facts but does not really offer
insight into the actual view of the High Court thereon or on the ‘new
circumstances’ sought to be put forth by respondent no.1 – Moreover,
the impugned order omitted to consider the detailed judgment passed
by this Court to cull out whether ‘new circumstances’ had emerged
to enlarge respondent no.1 on bail – Over-burdened docket is no
justification for formulaic justice – High Court fell in error and has
consequently offered up the impugned order for interdiction – When
this Court had, while cancelling and/or setting aside bail granted on
two previous occasions, examined all relevant aspects in extenso,
it was incumbent upon the High Court to provide comprehensive
reasoning, moreso, in light of this Court’s observation of future
consideration of bail ‘at a later stage’ – Impugned order quashed –
Bail granted to respondent no.1 set aside – Respondent no.1 to
remain in custody and not be enlarged on bail till the conclusion
of the trial – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 148, 149, 352, 302, 307,
504 and 34. [Paras 13, 16, 18, 20]
Case Law Cited
Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 787; Manik Madhukar Sarve v.
Vitthal Damuji Meher [2024] 8 SCR 753 : (2024) 10 SCC 753;
Shabeen Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2025] 3 SCR 367 :
(2025) 4 SCC 172; State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 518; Victim ‘X’ v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1490; Ajwar v. Niyaj Ahmad [2022] 7 SCR 356 : 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1403; Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote
[1980] 3 SCR 15 : (1980) 2 SCC 559; Vilas Pandurang Pawar v.
State of Maharashtra [2012] 8 SCR 270 : (2012) 8 SCC 795;
Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi v. State of Gujarat [2023] 4 SCR 239 :
(2023) 17 SCC 521; Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan
(2022) 3 SCC 501; Ajwar v. Waseem [2024] 5 SCR 575 : (2024)
10 SCC 768 – referred to.
Waseem v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine All 1518;
Waseem v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine All
1510 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Constitution of India.
2064 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Bail; Cancellation of Bail; New circumstances emerging at a later
stage; Limited window open in futuro; One sided investigation by
police; Ignoring the case of accused side; Over-burdened docket;
Justification for formulaic justice’; Overcrowding in jails; At a later
stage; Custody; Enlarged on bail; Conclusion of the trial; Ground
to allow bail; Formulaic Justice.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
3232 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.06.2025 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CRMBA No. 10572 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Md. Anas Chaudhary, Ms. Alia Bano Zaidi, Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Shikil Shiv Suri, Sr. Adv., M. Z. Chaudhary, Tabarq Hussain, Aftab
Ali Khan, Vishal Arun Mishra.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Heard learned counsel/senior counsel for the parties.
2. I.A. No.156017/2025 seeking permission to file the Special
Leave Petition is allowed. I.A. Nos.156019/2025, 156023/2025,
167425/2025, 176616/2025 and 176617/2025 be treated as having
been formally allowed.
3. Leave granted.
FACTUAL PRISM:
4. The present appeal arises from the Impugned Order dated 03.06.2025
in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10572/2025 [2025:AHC:94655]
passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad granting bail to respondent no.1-accused.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2065
Ajwar v. Waseem and Another
5. A few basic facts are to be noted before this Court examines the
merits.
6. Respondent no.1 is an accused in a case filed by the appellant-
informant under Sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 302, 307, 504 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Initially, when bail was granted
to respondent no.1 by the High Court on 22.08.2022 [Waseem v
State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine All 1518], the appellant
moved before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1784/2022, in which
the Order granting bail was interfered with by this Court vide Order
dated 14.10.2022 [Ajwar v Waseem, (2024) 10 SCC 787] and the
matter was remanded to the High Court. This led to the second round
and respondent no.1 pursued his prayer for bail in the High Court.
The High Court vide Order dated 07.12.2022 [Waseem v State of
Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine All 1510] once again granted
bail to respondent no.1. Once more, the appellant moved this Court
seeking cancellation of bail, which was allowed vide Judgment dated
17.05.2024 [Ajwar v Waseem, (2024) 10 SCC 768] (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Judgment dated 17.05.2024’). The Judgment
dated 17.05.2024 dealt with all the connected cases, and therein,
while interfering with the bail granted to respondent no.1 and the
others, this Court granted a window to the respondents-accused to
move for bail afresh, observing:
‘35. … It is also clarified that in the event of any new
circumstances emerging, the respondents shall be entitled
to apply for bail at a later stage.’
7. This observation led respondent no.1 to apply for bail afresh before
the learned Trial Court, which was rejected on 20.01.2025. He then
moved the High Court in April, 2025, and by way of the Impugned
Order, bail was granted.
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS:
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Impugned
Order not only suffers from material irregularities but also violates
the tenor and spirit of the Judgment of this Court by which the bail
granted to respondent no.1 was cancelled. It was submitted that the
Court, while cancelling the bail of respondent no.1, had dealt with
each and every aspect of the matter on merits and, for all practical
purposes, on the day of such cancellation, whatever ground which
2066 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
may have been available to respondent no.1 was closed and the
‘new circumstances emerging’ could only be prospective in nature.
It was submitted that the Trial Court, thus, had correctly appreciated
the position and rejected the prayer for bail; whereas, the High Court
has approached the matter in a manner which would reveal that the
High Court thought that it was considering the application for bail for
the first time and delved into all those aspects which had already
been dealt with at the time of cancellation of bail by this Court. It
was submitted that the so-called ground before the High Court, as
noted in the Impugned Order, is the period of custody and the fact
that some similarly-situated accused had been granted bail by the
High Court.
9. It was contended that having moved earlier before this Court, the
appellant succeeded, and Judgment dated 17.05.2024 was final on
all aspects/grounds available to the respondent no.1 on such date.
Learned counsel submitted that, when the High Court had granted bail
earlier, respondent no.1 misused the privilege and committed various
criminal acts, including intimidation and assault on the witnesses, for
which a First Information Report was also lodged. It was contended
that respondent no.1, additionally, has criminal antecedent(s), and
most importantly, the trial was already in progress and was advancing
at a relatively good pace. Further, whatever delay was being caused
in trial, the same was on account of non-cooperation from the side
of the accused, and such being the position, interference and grant
of bail by the High Court was not proper, and the normal course
ought to have been a direction to the Trial Court to conclude the
trial expeditiously. Learned counsel submitted that respondent no.1
is enjoying the privilege of bail without being entitled to the same.
Further, parity cannot be the sole ground in view of the background
that this Court, not once, but twice, after going into the finer details
on merits with regard to whether respondent no.1 deserved bail,
had concluded that the same was not justified and interfered with
the findings of the High Court, being conscious of all factors as of
17.05.2024. It was urged that the appeal be allowed.
RESPONDENT NO.1’S SUBMISSIONS:
10. Notice to respondent no.1 was not formally issued on the last occasion
(21.07.2025) as learned Advocate-on-Record appeared on his behalf.
On prayer made seeking time to bring on record testimonies of the
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2067
Ajwar v. Waseem and Another
witnesses examined, the matter was adjourned at his request and
has been taken up for final hearing today.
11. Learned senior counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that the
Court may take into consideration the parameters which are now
well-established and laid down by various judicial pronouncements,
requiring a substantive ground for cancellation of bail to be
established, once bail has been granted. It was contended that the
basic principle for cancellation of bail is whether the person who is
enlarged on bail had abused such indulgence/privilege and/or violated
the terms of grant of bail, which, in the present case has not been
done. Further, neither the trial is being hampered due to the grant of
bail to respondent no.1 nor has he indulged in any criminal activity,
as there has not been such allegation or case registered against him
in this regard. It was submitted that respondent no.1, if not having
a better case than the other co-accused whose bail was upheld by
this Court, is at least similarly-situated to them. It was submitted that
the Court may take a lenient view in the larger public interest, for, at
the end of the day, if respondent no.1 is acquitted, the period spent
behind bars by him cannot be returned.
12. Learned senior counsel tried, with eloquence, to persuade this
Court not to be swayed by the general impression sought to be
created by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the
Judgment dated 17.05.2024 by this Court cancelling the bail granted
to respondent no.1, because the matter relates to the personal
liberty of an individual. Learned senior counsel emphasised that
this Court may go by the substantive reasons recorded by the High
Court while granting bail. It was submitted that a counter-case has
also been filed by the accused in the present case for the same
incident. Moreover, it was submitted that there have been injuries on
the side of the accused, but surprisingly, the concerned agencies,
including the police, have not shown due diligence in pursuing the
matter, which has caused serious threat to the life and security of
respondent no.1 and the other co-accused. It was submitted that
they are being harassed and pursued in such a manner, where the
ordinary and justified indulgence given by the High Court, is being
portrayed as a grave transgression and challenged so vehemently
by the appellant, with a malafide intention, so as to prejudice this
Court against adopting a dispassionate view based on objective
circumstances, which are borne out from the case records. It was
2068 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
submitted that even apropos the allegation of dilatory tactics and
of non-cooperation, the Orders of the Trial Court, which have been
brought on record, themselves disclose that it was not respondent
no.1, but rather the other co-accused who may have, at some point in
time, sought adjournments in the year 2023 and not thereafter. Thus,
the same should not be held as a circumstance against respondent
no.1. It was prayed that the appeal deserved dismissal at our hands.
ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
13. Upon taking into account the entirety of the case, we may candidly
state that the Impugned Order requires intercession. The scheme of
the Constitution mandates that all Orders/Judgments of this Court
have to be given due deference to by all other Courts, including
the High Courts, in letter and in spirit. In the present case, both the
earlier Order(s)/Judgment(s) cancelling bail to respondent no.1 would
leave no doubt that this Court examined all material aspects which
the parties have argued today, especially in the Judgment dated
17.05.2024. Ultimately, this Court vide Judgment dated 17.05.2024
concluded that, in the circumstances, grant of bail was unjustified,
both on facts and in law, while keeping a limited window open in
futuro, as noted supra. Therefore, the Judgment dated 17.05.2024
assumes significance yet was not properly appreciated by the High
Court.
14. We are required to dwell upon the manner and trajectory of the
respondent no.1’s quest for bail. After rejection of the bail application
by the Trial Court’s Order dated 20.01.2025, respondent no.1
knocked the doors of the High Court in April, 2025. The Judgment
dated 17.05.2024 had indicated that ‘… in the event of any new
circumstances emerging, the respondents shall be entitled to apply
for bail at a later stage.’ Before the High Court, respondent no.1
projected the ‘new circumstances’ at Paragraph 4:
‘(i) At present, the applicant’s total custody in the crime
in question is 3 years and 2 months, 15 days and four
prosecution witnesses of fact, i.e., PW-1, PW-2, PW-3
and PW-4, have been examined by the prosecution and
the evidence of PW-5 (formal witness) is being recorded.
The prosecution has applied to the trial court that no other
fact-witness is required to be produced by the prosecution.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2069
Ajwar v. Waseem and Another
(ii) The trial in question has been hampered again and
again by the informant’s persistent frivolous applications
for summoning the non-charge sheeted co-accused.
Moreover, the informant has not only caused delay by filing
such applications but has also caused delay in recording
of evidence by the trial court
(iii) The co-accused Gayyur, Kadir @ Abdul Kadir and
Nadeem have been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court
on their respective bail applications vide orders dated
26.09.2023, 23.05.2023 and 23.05.2023, against which
the informant Ajwar preferred S.L.P. (Crim) Diary Nos.
33688 of 2024, 53548 of 2023 and 53523 of 2023 before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has been disposed of
vide order dated 25.11.2024 and the bail orders passed
in favour of the above noted co-accused have not been
interfered with and the informant has been asked to
approach Hon’ble High Court for his grivances, if any.
(iv) The role assigned by the prosecution to the applicant
is similar to the co-accused Gayyur, Kadir @ Abdul Kadir
and Nadeem. Hence, the prayer of bail on behalf of the
applicant stands on a similar footing. At present, total of
five accused, namely, Nazim, Abubakar, Waseem, Aslam
and Niyaz are languishing in jail.
(v) Moreover, the investigation of cross-case, i.e., crime
no. 0361 of 2020, has revealed certain surprising facts,
which demolish the entire prosecution version of crime
no. 0126 of 2020. Despite the revelation of those crucial
facts, the respective investigating officers of crime no. 0361
of 2020 have repeatedly filed Final Reports, which have
been rejected by the learned court below with repeated
point-wise directions have been issued to unearth the truth
of the entire controversy.
(vi) There is no likelihood of an early conclusion of the
trial, as there are a total of 21 Prosecution witnesses
mentioned in the charge sheet.’ (sic)
15. The Judgment dated 17.05.2024 dealt with the relevant parameters
for granting bail and the considerations for setting aside bail orders.
2070 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
The principles holding the field, as laid out in the Judgment dated
17.05.2024, were recently reiterated, inter alia, in Manik Madhukar
Sarve v Vitthal Damuji Meher, (2024) 10 SCC 753; Shabeen Ahmad
v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 172; State of Rajasthan
v Indraj Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 518 and Victim ‘X’ v State
of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1490. Let us turn our gaze now
to the reasoning employed by the High Court while passing the
Impugned Order:
‘9. After hearing rival contentions of the parties, this
court finds that the witnesses of fact have already been
examined. The applicant was earlier in jail from 27.05.2020
to 25.08.2022. He was granted bail by this court but after
cancellation of bail the applicant again surrendered and
was in jail from 21.10.2022 to 18.12.2022. Thereafter again
his bail was cancelled by Apex Court and he is in jail since
31.05.2024. Although three prosecution witnesses remain
to be examined but thereafter the defence evidence would
be led and it will take time.
10. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case, applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
11. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence,
complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant;
keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of
trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the
case of accused side; applicant being under trial having
fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and recent judgment
dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra
Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of
2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over
and above their capacity by the under trials and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court
is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for
bail. The bail application is allowed.’
(emphasis supplied)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2071
Ajwar v. Waseem and Another
16. The aspect of the matter that bothers us most is the considerations
which have weighed with the learned Single Judge while penning
the Impugned Order. Observations such as ‘one sided investigation
by police’ and ‘ignoring the case of accused side’ besides being
thoroughly unwarranted, had absolutely no nexus with the prayer
for bail which the learned Single Judge was seized of. Given the
heinous nature of the alleged offence(s), in our considered view, it
was not open to the High Court to make ‘5-6 times overcrowding in
jails’ as a ground to allow bail. Further, as evincible, the Impugned
Order notes certain facts at Paragraph 9 but Paragraph 11 does
not really offer insight into the actual view of the High Court
thereon or on the ‘new circumstances’ sought to be put forth by
respondent no.1 in Paragraph 4 of the Impugned Order. Moreover,
the Impugned Order has omitted to consider the detailed Judgment
dated 17.05.2024 to cull out whether ‘new circumstances’ had
emerged to enlarge respondent no.1 on bail. In this view, the
caveat that the Impugned Order was passed ‘without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case’ pales into insignificance and
is not nearly enough for us to sustain the same. No doubt, ‘an
over-burdened docket is no justification for formulaic justice.’ [Refer
Ajwar v Niyaj Ahmad, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1403] The High
Court fell in error and has consequently offered up the Impugned
Order for interdiction.
17. We must clarify that we should not be misunderstood as having
conveyed that bail orders should be long and lengthy, but, in the
facts of this case, when this Court had, while cancelling and/or
setting aside bail granted on two previous occasions, examined
all relevant aspects in extenso, it was incumbent upon the High
Court to provide comprehensive reasoning, moreso, in light of this
Court’s observation of future consideration of bail ‘at a later stage.’
What this Court has repeatedly cautioned against is to refrain from
elaborately discussing/detailing the evidence or the view of the Court
thereon while considering grant of bail [Niranjan Singh v Prabhakar
Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559; Vilas Pandurang Pawar v
State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795, and; Atulbhai Vithalbhai
Bhanderi v State of Gujarat, (2023) 17 SCC 521], but that does not
obviate the bail order from offering cogent and germane reasoning,
bearing in the mind the dicta in Manoj Kumar Khokhar v State of
Rajasthan, (2022) 3 SCC 501.
2072 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
18. Accordingly, for reasons aforesaid, this appeal stands allowed. The
Impugned Order is quashed and bail granted to respondent no.1
stands set aside. Respondent no.1 is directed to surrender before
the Trial Court at the latest within three weeks from today. The
Trial Court shall endeavour with full vigour to proceed on priority
and conclude the trial expeditiously. Copy of this Order be also
despatched forthwith to the concerned Registrar of the High Court
for onward transmission to the Trial Court. Our observations herein
are confined to the legality of the Impugned Order and shall neither
aid the prosecution nor prejudice the accused at trial.
19. Before parting, we take note of the submission by learned senior
counsel for respondent no.1 that the counter-case filed by the
accused is not being followed-up by the authorities in the manner
required. If that be so, we may only observe that it shall be open
to the aggrieved person(s) to pursue their remedies in accordance
with law before the appropriate forum, including the High Court. Any
plea in this regard shall be examined by the concerned forum on
its own merits.
20. After the Order was dictated, learned senior counsel for respondent
no.1 prayed that liberty granted by this Court in the Judgment dated
17.05.2024 in the context of renewing the prayer for bail be maintained.
We find that in the current scenario, the same would be unnecessary, as
we have been informed that the majority of the prosecution witnesses
have already been examined. Given the chequered litigative history
and the attendant facts, we clarify that respondent no.1 shall remain
in custody and not be enlarged on bail till the conclusion of the trial.
Having directed so, we are quite aware of the grave consequences
thereof as also fully cognizant that a person should not suffer for no
fault of his or for the fault of others. Therefore, in case, genuinely, for
reason(s) not attributable to respondent no.1, things are not taken to
their logical conclusion expeditiously, he shall be at liberty to approach
this Court directly for obtaining bail.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Bail"Sign in to search