MANSAB ALI versus LRSAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 86 · Decided: 13-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MANSAB ALI 
V. 
lRSAN AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 13, 2002 
B 
[M. B. SHAH AND D.M. DHARMADHlKARl, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-(]rant or refusal of bail-Exercise 
of-Courts to indicate reasons for grant or refusal of bail-Jurisdiction not to 
C ~ exercised in casual or cavalier manner. 
Respondent-accused was facing trial with others for offences under 
sections 302, 307, 323 read with sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC. High Court 
granted bai.l to respondent-accused and did not indicate as to why it 
considered lit to g~ant bail to only one of the accused. Hence the present 
D appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The provisions of Criminal Procedure Code confer 
discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to accused 
E pending trial or in appeal against convictions. Since the jurisdiction is 
discretionary it is required to be exercised with great care and caution by 
balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the 
society in general. In granting or refusing the bail, courts are required to 
indicate, may be very briefly, the reasons for grant or refusal of bail. '.fhe 
jurisdiction has not to be exercised in a casual and cavalier fashion. 
F 
. 
• 
(87-F, GI 
1.2. In the instant case, the High Court Judge did not give due 
consideration to relevant factors like the nature of the accusation, the 
character, behaviour, antecedents and standing of the accused, thus the 
G order of High Court is not justified. 188-CI 
1.3. Since the Sessions trial in which the accused was enlarged on 
bail is proceeding with expedition and nrnjor part of evidence has been 
recorded, this Court refrains from the exercise of going through the police 
papers and the evidence so far recorded by trial court to consider t.he 
H prayer of complainant for cancellation of bail. Sessions Judge, conducting 
86 
MANSAB ALI v. IRSAN [DHARMADHIKARl, J.) 
87 
the trial of the case is directed to consider the present application of the A 
complainant for cancellation of bail. It is left to the judicious discretion 
of Sessions Judge to continue the bail or cancel the same after hearing 
the counsel for the prosecution and the accused. [88·D~El 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
1312 of 2002. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.200 I of the Uttaranchal 
High Court in Crl. M.B.A. No. 1043 of 2001. 
Ashwani Garg and Vijay Kumar, for the Appellant. 
Ms. Alka Agarwal, Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, Ms. Do.rothy Michael and 
. Ajay K. Agarwal for the Respondent No. 2. 
S.A. Siddiqui, Hasan Ansar and Goodwill Indeevar, for the Respondent 
No. I. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DHARMADHIKARI, J. Leave to appeal is granted. 
The learned counsel appearing for the parties are finally heard on the 
merits of the appeal. 
The complainant has approached this court against a laconic order 
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttranchal granting 
amongst several co-accused, bail to accused-respondent herein who is facing 
trial with others in Crime No.148 of 200 I for offences under Sections 302, 
307, 323 read with Sections 147,148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 
The provisions of Criminal Procedure Code confer discretionary 
jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bails to accused pending trials or in 
appeals against convictions. Since the jurisdiction is discretionary it is required 
c 
D 
E 
F 
to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of 
liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In granting G 
or refusing the bail, the courts are required to indicate, may be very briefly, 
the reasons for grant or refusal of bail. The jurisdiction has not to be exercised 
in a casual and cavalier fashion as has been done by the learned judge in this 
case. 
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant severely criticizes the H 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A order impugned granting bail to the respondent-accused. It is submitted that 
respondent-lrsan was on bail pending Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1998 filed 
by him with four co-accused persons. It is during the bail period that he is 
alleged to have committed the offence of murder of Dr. Ayyub and injured 
Kayyum and Kalloo. Looking to the seriousness of the offence and nature of 
B allegations, Sessions Judge, Haridwar, rejected the bail application on 
31.10.2001. 
The learned Judge by his order dated 20.11.2001 granted bail to 
r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.