TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 1031
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The said respondent was one of the persons named in FIR No.181 of 2007, registered at Police Station Asmouli, District Moradabad against 22 persons. The FIR was initially registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), but subsequently, on the death of two injured persons, Section 302, IPC was also added. The first respondent is the State of U.P. 3. Briefly stated, the background facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: On 18th September, 2007, at about 5.25 p.m., an FIR was lodged by the appellant with the said police station for an incident which took place at about 3.30 p.m. at village Asmouli. The case was registered as Crime Case No. 347 of 2007. It w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Anzar s/o Mehboob to buy some vegetables, he told Anzar that his vegetables were very expensive, on which Anzar and one Shahroz, who was standing there, started abusing him. When Basiruddin protested, they started beating him with legs and fists. Basiruddin then came back home but after some time, many people, including Shahroz, Anzar (since deceased) and Qayyum, came to his house and started firing with an intention to kill him. 5. The persons named in the first FIR were arrested on different dates. Upon recording the statements of some eyewitnesses, including the injured witnesses, charge-sheet was filed against all the 22 accused persons named in Crime Case No.347/2007, including the second respondent, on 19 th November, 2007. 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort to the court of learned C.J.M. concerned in the first week of each month to show his good conduct and behaviour. * He shall not tamper with the evidence. In case of default of any of the above mentioned conditions, the bail granted to the applicant shall be deemed cancelled and he shall be taken into custody forthwith." 8. Being aggrieved by the order enlarging the second respondent on bail, the complainant is before us in this appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously urged that the High Court has not only failed to take into consideration the circumstances under which a heinous crime, resulting in loss of two lives and grievous injuries to a number of persons was committed, it also failed to rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), there is no other reason warranting interference by this Court. 11. Normally this Court does not interfere with the order of the High Court relating to grant or rejection of bail but in the instant case, having carefully gone through the impugned order, we are constrained to observe that the High Court has completely ignored the basic principles which are to be kept in view while dealing with an application filed under Section 439 of the Code for grant of bail and has thus, committed a manifest error in the matter of grant of bail to the second respondent, warranting interference by this Court. 12. It is trite to state that the Court granting bail has to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner with care and caution and not as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case. It is possible that in a given situation, the collective interest of the community may outweigh the right of personal liberty of the individual concerned. In this context, the following observations of this Court in Shahzad Hasan Khan Vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan(1987) 2 SCC 684, are quite apposite: "Liberty is to be secured through process of law, which is administered keeping in mind the interest of the accused, the near and dear of the victim who lost his life and who feel helpless and believe that there is no justice in the world as also the collective interest of the community so that parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution." 14. Therefore, the question for consideration is whethe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....soever for grant of bail. This is manifest from the afore extracted order that there is no consideration of any of the factors, like nature of the offence; the evidence collected by the prosecution and forming part of the chargesheet and the circumstances under which the offences were committed, all relevant for deciding the question whether the bail should be granted or not. In our opinion, failure on the part of the learned judge in not indicating any reason for grant of bail particularly when charges against the second respondent are serious, makes his order indefensible. As observed by this Court in Puran's case (supra), giving reasons is different from discussing merits or demerits. At the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination....