Supreme Court of India
Mansoor Alam vs State Of U.P & Anr on 15 January, 2015Author: A K Goel

Bench: T.S. Thakur, Adarsh Kumar Goel



(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO.9247 of 2013)






1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment

and order dated 23rd April, 2013 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.6239 of 2010.

3. The respondent Moni alias Mohd. Ahmad stands

convicted under Section 302/34/120B Indian Penal Code

(“IPC”) in proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.112 of

2006 under Section 302/384/307/120-B IPC, P.S. Anwarganj,

District Kanpur Nagar for causing death of Aftaab Alam on 3 rd

September, 2006 at 09.30 P.M. by firing bullet from country

made pistol. The order of conviction and sentence was

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No.3,

Kanpur City dated 11th August, 2010 against which Criminal

Page 1
Criminal Appeal No of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.9247 of 2013

Appeal No.6239 of 2010 has been filed by the respondent

before the Allahabad High Court. The said respondent also

filed an application for bail during pendency of the appeal.

The High Court granted bail taking into account the

contention that the deceased sustained two fatal injuries and

rest of the injuries were on non vital parts and also having

regard to the period of custody of the respondent.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant pointed

out that specific role has been attributed to the second

respondent in the FIR to the effect that he along with his

brother came and fired shots from their country made pistols

instantly causing the death of Aftaab Alam. The appellant-

complainant was a witness being PW-1 whose evidence has

been duly accepted by the trial Court. The second

respondent had criminal antecedents which have not been

taken into account even though the same were pointed out to

the High Court. Our attention has been drawn to averments

made in the counter affidavit dated

14th April, 2013 filed before the High court and document

Annexure CA-1 mentioning that the following four cases were

pending against the second respondent apart from the cases

Page 2
Criminal Appeal No of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.9247 of 2013

pending against the

co-accused :

S.No. Case No.Section Polic

1. 104/04 307, 323 IPC Ana
2. 140/05 110 Cr.P.C. Ana
3. 112/06 302,384,307,120B IPC Ana
4. 221/06 3(1) U.P. Gangaster Act Ana

6. The matter came up for hearing after notice was issued

and finding that respondent No.2 had failed to appear,

bailable warrants were directed to be issued against

respondent No.2. Letter dated

27th September, 2014 has been received from the trial Court

stating that respondent No.2 is still in custody. It appears

that he has not been able to furnish the bail bonds. The

additional documents have been filed on behalf of the State.

It has been pointed out that the second respondent was

facing trial in cases being FIR No.46 of 2004 in Case Crime

No.104 of 2004 u/s 323, 307 IPC, PS Anwrganj, Kanpur Nagar

and FIR No.142 of 2006 in Crime Case No.221 of 2006 u/s

3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1986. In Crime Case No.140 of 2005 u/s

110 Cr.P.C. dated 22nd July, 2005, the respondent was ordered

to file a bond for Good Behaviour which he had filed on 12 th

September, 2012. A perusal of the impugned order of the

Page 3
Criminal Appeal No of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.9247 of 2013

High Court shows that the antecedents of respondent No.2

have not been taken into account. Respondent No.2 has not

furnished bail bond in pursuance of the order of the High

Court and has continued to remain in prison. We are thus of

the view that order granting bail, in the facts and

circumstances, is not called for. There is no doubt that

respondent No.2 appears to have undergone imprisonment

for more than eight years, but the contention raised on behalf

of the appellant that the respondent has criminal

antecedents and direct role in the murder which render the

order granting bail vulnerable cannot to be brushed aside.

7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits,

we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court

granting bail to respondent No.2. However, we request the

High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously and as far as

possible within one year from the date of receipt of this order.

It is made clear that if there is undue delay in hearing of the

appeal, the respondent will be at liberty to apply for bail




Page 4
Criminal Appeal No of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.9247 of 2013

JANUARY 15, 2015

Page 5


Leave a Reply

Sign In


Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.