Page 1

1

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

O R D E R

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 3rd 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 Appeal No.6239 of 2010 has been filed by

Page 2

2

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  

pending  against  the   

co-accused :

S.No. Case No. Section  1. 104/04 307, 323 IPC 2. 140/05 110 Cr.P.C.

Page 3

3

3. 112/06 302,384,307,120B  IPC 4. 221/06 3(1) U.P. Gangaster Act

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  

12th September, 2012.  A perusal of the impugned order of the  

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

Page 4

4

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)

NEW DELHI JANUARY 15, 2015

Page 5

5

ITEM No. 1B             Court No. 2                SECTION  (For Judgment)                  

S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS       Criminal Appeal  No(s). …. of 2015 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 9247 of 2013  

MANSOOR ALAM                                Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

STTE OF U.P. AND ANR.              Respondent(s)

 Date : 15.01.2015   This appeal was called on for judgment  today.

For Appellant(s) Ms. Tulika Prakash, Adv.

                        For Respondent(s) Mr. Adarsh Upadhayay, Adv.

         UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Adarsh  Kumar  Goel  

pronounced  Judgment  of  the  Bench  comprising  

Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur and His Lordship.

Leave granted  

The  appeal  is  allowed  in  terms  of  the  

signed non-reportable judgment.

(Shashi Sareen) Court Master

(Veena Khera) Court Master  

(Signed non­eportable judgment is placed on the file)