caselaws
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
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO.9247 of 2013)
MANSOOR ALAM …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
ORDER
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
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
Stat
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
again.
……………………………………………J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
……………………………………………J.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
Page 4
Criminal Appeal No of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.9247 of 2013
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 15, 2015
Page 5
Comments