ANWARI BEGUM versus SHER MOHAMMAD AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 19-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ANWAR! BEGUM 
A 
V. 
SHER MOHAMMAD AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 
[ARIJIT.PASAYAT AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.) 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 439-Bail-Application 
for-Grant of, by High Court, by cryptic non-reasoned order-Correctness 
of-Held: Non speaking and non reasoned order is clearly indefensible and C 
not proper-Court dealing with bail applications is to exercise its discretion 
in judicious manner and not as a matter of course-It should indicate prim a 
facie reasons for granting bail and any order dehors of such reasons suffers 
from non-application of mind-Hence, order of High Court set aside and 
grant of bail cancelled. 
Respondent No.I shot the deceased with the intention of causing his 
deat~ and later filed a bail application. Trial Court rejected the application 
since the respondent No.I was clearly implicated by the eyewitnesses who•e 
statements were recorded during investigation. However, High Court 
allowed the bail application. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
E 
HELD: I. A cursory perusal of the order of High Court shows 
complete non-application of mind. High Court granted bail to the 
respondent by a non-speaking and non-reasoned order, and as such is 
clearly indefensible and was not proper. Therefore, the order of the High F 
Court is set aside and the bail granted to respondent no.I is cancelled. 
(29I-A-B; 292-A-BI 
2.1. Detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate 
documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while G 
passing orders on bail applications, yet a Court dealing with the bail 
application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case. 
The court dealing with the application for bail is required to exercise its 
discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. 
287 
288 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
2.2. There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie 
concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused was 
charged of having committed a serious offence. It is necessary for the 
courts dealing with application for bail to consider among other 
circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail, they are (I) 
B the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of 
conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (2) Reasonable 
apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the 
complainant; (3) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the 
charge. Any order dehors of such reasons suffers from non-application of 
mind. (291-C-D-E-FJ 
c 
Omar Usman Chamadia v. Abdul and Anr., JT (2004) 2 SC 176; V.D. 
Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2005) 7 SCALE 68; Ram 
Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors., [20021 3 SCC 598; Puran 
etc. v. Rambilas and Anr. etc., [2001) 6 SCC 338; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. 
Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Anr., JT (2004) 3 SC 442 and Chaman 
D Lal v. State of U.P. and Anr., JT (2004) 6 SC 540, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1223 
of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.6.2003 of the Allahabad High 
E Court in Crl. Misc. C.No. 1482 of 2002(B). 
B.S. Jain, Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Ms. Charuwali Khanna and Dr. (Mrs.) 
Vipin Gupta for the Appellant. 
Ms. Neelam Singh, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra and Adesh Kumar Gill for 
p the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
This appeal is by the informant questioning grant of bail to respondent 
G No. I (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') by the impugned judgment 
passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow 
Bench. 
Factual position, as highlighted by the appellant is as follows: 
H 
On 26.4.2002, the respondent No. I and other in pursuance of their 
ANWAR! BEGUMv. SHER MOHAMMAD [PASAYAT, J.] 
289 
common object, surrounded Jamaluddin, husband of the appellant, (hereinafter A 
referred to as the 'deceased') while he was coming by scooter along with the 
appellant and their daughter. Because of some previous litigations, respondent 
No. I-accused had animosity with the deceased and with the intention of 
causing his death the respondent No. I-accused who was armed with a double 
barrel gun shot at the deceased. Others also participated in the attack. The 
informant and her daughter started crying for help hearing which co-villagers B 
came to the spot. The respondent No. I
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.