As per case facts, the complainant challenged a High Court order granting bail to accused Irsan, facing murder charges. Irsan was reportedly already on bail for another case when these ...
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1312 of 2002
Special Leave Petition (crl.) 1285 of 2002
PETITIONER:
Mansab Ali
RESPONDENT:
Irsan and another
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/12/2002
BENCH:
M.B. Shah & D.M. Dharmadhikari.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
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 2001 for offences under
Section 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 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, 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 order impugned granting bail to the
respondent-accused. It is submitted that respondent-Irsan
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
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 respondent-Irsan and has not indicated why
he considered it fit to grant bail to only one of the accused.
It is not apparent from the impugned order that the learned
judge has given due consideration to relevant factors like
the nature of the accusation, the evidence collected by the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
prosecution, the character, behaviour, antecedents and
standing of the accused.
We dis-approve the judgment rendered by the High
Court. We were also inclined to undertake the exercise of
going through the police papers and the evidence so far
recorded by the trial court to consider the prayer of
complainant for cancellation of bail but we refrain from
doing so because learned counsel appearing for respondent
accused Irsan informs that the Sessions trial in which the
accused was enlarged on bail is proceeding with expedition
and major part of evidence has been recorded.
In the aforesaid circumstances, we direct the
learned Sessions Judge, conducting the trial of the case to
consider the present application of the complainant for
cancellation of bail on the basis of the police papers and the
evidence so far recorded in the case. We leave it to the
judicious discretion of the learned Sessions Judge to
continue the bail or cancel the same after hearing the
counsel for the prosecution and the accused.
The appeal, thus, stands disposed of.
The landmark Supreme Court judgment in Mansab Ali v. Irsan and another, delivered on December 13, 2002, serves as a crucial precedent concerning the judicious exercise of Discretionary Bail Power. This ruling, which highlights a significant instance of Bail Cancellation, underscores the meticulous scrutiny applied to such decisions and is prominently featured on CaseOn, offering comprehensive legal insights for professionals.
The case originated from a challenge by the complainant, Mansab Ali, against an order from the High Court of Uttranchal. The High Court had granted bail to accused-respondent Irsan, who was facing serious charges under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 323, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Crime No. 148 of 2001. Irsan was also out on bail in a separate Criminal Appeal (No. 78 of 1998) when the current alleged offenses, including the murder of Dr. Ayyub and injuries to Kayyum and Kalloo, occurred.
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's order was 'laconic,' failing to provide adequate reasons for granting bail, especially to only one of the co-accused. This decision was criticized for being a 'casual and cavalier fashion' exercise of discretionary power, ignoring the seriousness of the new alleged offenses committed by Irsan while already on bail.
The central issue was whether the High Court of Uttranchal had properly exercised its discretionary power in granting bail to an accused facing grave charges, particularly when the accused was previously out on bail for other offenses and allegedly committed new serious crimes during that period. The complainant sought the Bail Cancellation of the accused.
The Supreme Court reiterated the established principles governing bail applications:
The Supreme Court rigorously analyzed the High Court's decision, finding it deficient on several counts:
For legal professionals seeking swift comprehension of such critical rulings, CaseOn.in offers invaluable 2-minute audio briefs that distill complex judgments like this one into easily digestible formats, aiding in efficient legal analysis and strategy formulation.
The Supreme Court disapproved of the High Court's judgment, finding that it had exercised its discretionary power in a casual and cavalier manner. While refraining from directly cancelling the bail due to the advanced stage of the trial where much evidence had already been recorded, the Supreme Court directed the learned Sessions Judge to reconsider the complainant's application for Bail Cancellation. The Sessions Judge was instructed to evaluate the application based on police papers and the evidence recorded so far, making a judicious decision on whether to continue or cancel the bail after hearing both the prosecution and the accused.
This judgment serves as a vital reminder of the principles governing discretionary bail grants. It underscores:
All information provided in this blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with a qualified legal professional for advice on any specific legal matter.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....