Imran Ali v. Habibullah and Anr.

ORDER

J I. We have heard counsel for the Parties.

¶2It is no doubt true that the High Court felt persuaded to grant bail to the respondents in the pending appeal before it. The High Court, however, went on to record a very detailed reasoned order .virtually holding that the prosecution case has no merit. Such observations either for or against the prosecution, made in orders disposing of bail applications may prejudicially affect the interest of the parties because in case a trial is pending before the Sessions Court, the Trial Judge may consider itself bound by the observations made in such an order. In any event such observations are bound to influence its mind. It is no doubt true that in appropriate cases particularly in serious matters, the High Court may record reasons, but the High Court while recording reasons must take care to safeguard against prejudicing the case of the parties. The recording of reasons, wherever necessary, is 011ly to indicate· the considerations that may have weighed with the Court in passing the order and the Court rriust do so in a manner that may not prejudice the case of the parties. The trend recently noticed, to virtually write a judgment while disposing of an application for grant of bail must be discouraged.

¶3While not upsetting the order passed by the High Courts, we obsserve that the findings recorded in the Order granting bail ought to be eschewed when the appeal itself is taken up for hearing.

¶4The Special leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Petition For Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 3986 of2006.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2006 ofthe High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 1447 of2005.

WITH

S.L.P. {Crl) No. 3987, 3988 of2006.

Samir Ali Khan, Rishad Murtaz.a, Amit Kumar and Gaurav Dhama for the Appellant.

.,..J

U.U. Lalit, Kunwar C.M. Khan, Imran K. Burney, Zafar Khan and E.C.

Vidya Sagar for the Respondents.