9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court, Lucknow Bench. 3. Factual position, as highlighted by the appellant is as follows: On 26.4.2002, the respondent No. 1 and others in pursuance of their common object, surrounded Jamaluddin, husband of the appellant, (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') while he was coming by scooter along with the appellant and their daughter. Because of some previous litigations, respondent No. 1-accused had animosity with the deceased and with the intention of causing his death the respondent No. 1-accused who was armed with a double barrel gun shot at the deceased. Others also participated in the attack. The informant and her daughter started crying for help hearing which co-villagers came to the spot. The respondent No. 1 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pported the stand of the appellant and submitted that this is not a case where bail is to be granted. It is pointed out that the respondent No. 1 is implicated in several cases involving heinous crimes and even proceedings under Goonda Act have been initiated. 5. We find that the High Court had disposed of the bail application without indicating any reason and in a very cryptic manner. The entire order reads as follows: "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I find this is a fit case for bail, let applicant Sher Mohd. be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 149 of 2002 under Sections 147/148/149/504/302 IPC P.S. Amethi, District Sultanpur on his furnishing a personal bond of ₹ 5,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It may be that while concurring with the lower court's order, it may not be necessary for the said appellate court to assign reasons but that is not so while reversing such orders of the lower courts. It may be convenient for the said court to pass orders without indicating the grounds or basis but it certainly is not convenient for the court of appeal while considering the correctness of such impugned orders. The reasons need not be very detailed or elaborate, lest it may cause prejudice to the case of the parties, but must be sufficiently indicative of the process of reasoning leading to the passing of the impugned order. The need for delivering a reasoned order is a requirement of law which has to be complied with in all appealable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in support of the charge. Any order dehors of such reasons suffers from non-application of mind as was noted by this Court, in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. 2002CriLJ1849, Puran etc. v. Rambilas and Anr. etc., 2001CriLJ2566 and in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Anr. 2004CriLJ1796. The above position was highlighted by this Court in Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2004CriLJ4243. 9. Above being the position, the cryptic non-reasoned order of the High Court, is clearly indefensible. The inevitable conclusion is that the grant of bail to the respondent by a non-speaking and non-reasoned order was not proper. Therefore, we set aside the order of the High Court. The bail granted to re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
