http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  162 of 2004

PETITIONER: Omar Usman Chamadia                                      

RESPONDENT: Abdul & Anr.                                             

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/02/2004

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.2814 of 2003)

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

       Heard learned counsel for the parties.

       Leave granted.

       The appellant herein who is the complainant in Criminal  Case No.402 of 2002 registered with Jamnagar Police Station,  Gujarat, is challenging the impugned order of the High Court,  whereby the High Court allowed a criminal misc. application filed  by the first respondent herein and enlarged him on bail on  conditions mentioned therein.         It is the case of the appellant herein that the first respondent  and some other accused persons attacked the appellant and some  others on 14th of August, 2002 at about 10.30 a.m. in village Bedi  near Jamnagar, consequent to which attack one of the victims  Anwar Ala Chamadiya died and others suffered injuries. In regard  to this incident, the appellant filed the above mentioned criminal  complaint which was registered by the Jamnagar Police Station for  offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 325, 147, 148 and  149 IPC as also under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and Section  135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. On coming to know of the death  of above said Anwar Ala Chamadiya, the Investigating Agency  added Section 302 IPC also. On being arrested on the above  charges, the first respondent herein made an application for grant  of bail on 25th of September, 2002 before the learned Sessions  Judge. The said bail application was opposed by the State wherein  the Investigating Officer filed an affidavit that this respondent was  involved in 7 other cases and he had committed this present crime  while he was on bail in those cases. Further, he has also been  threatening witnesses, consequent to which in one of the earlier  cases bail granted to him was cancelled by the Sessions Court for  violating the conditions of the bail. After hearing the parties  including the appellant herein, the application filed by the first  respondent for grant of bail in the present case came to be rejected.         Against the said order of rejection of his application for  grant of bail, the first respondent preferred a criminal misc. petition  before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad which petition  came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 31st of January,  2003. The High Court while allowing the said application recorded  "the parties do not press for reasoned order". On that basis without  assigning any reason why a bail refused by the Sessions Court by a  reasoned order should be reversed by the High Court, it proceeded  to allow the application by imposing certain conditions. It is  against the said order of the High Court, the appellant, who is a  complainant in this case, has preferred this appeal seeking the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

cancellation of the bail.  Shri Ramesh P.Bhatt, learned senior counsel appearing for  the appellant contended that all the conditions imposed by the High  Court in the impugned order were also imposed by the courts  which granted the first respondent the bail in the other criminal  cases and the first respondent inspite of such conditions has  violated the same with impunity. He pointed out that the learned  Sessions Judge while rejecting the prayer for bail had noticed these  cases, but the High Court did not take the same into consideration.  He also pointed out from another judgement of the learned  Sessions Judge, Jamnagar made on 20th of May, 2003 the court had  noticed that this respondent has violated the conditions imposed on  him while granting the bail in the said case, hence, has cancelled  the bail. The learned counsel also pointed out that the present  crime from which this appeal arises is a crime involving an offence  punishable under Section 302 IPC and the said offence was  committed while the said respondent was on bail in another case.  Therefore, this fact clearly indicates that this respondent if  permitted to be on bail the life of the witnesses including that of  the complainant is likely to be in danger. He submitted that while  the trial court noticed all these facts, the High Court obviously did  not consider these facts and proceeded to grant bail to this  respondent in a mechanical manner. Shri S.S.Khanduja, learned counsel appearing for the first  respondent very seriously opposed the prayer for cancellation of  bail. He submitted that there has been a continuing rivalry between  the complainant and his family members on one side and this  respondent both on the ground of business as also on the ground of  politics, therefore, a series of false cases are being registered  against this respondent with a view to keep him in custody. He  submitted that the High Court after hearing the parties at length  considered it a fit case to enlarge this respondent on bail and this  court ought not to interfere with the said order. Learned counsel appearing for the State supported the  contentions of the appellant.  From the material on record, we notice that there are atleast  7 other cases pending against the first respondent involving  offences under Section 3 & 4 of TADA, Sections 25 and 27 of the  Arms Act and Sections 506(2), 325, 324, 307, 147, 326, 504 etc. of  IPC, apart from offences under the Prohibition Act. It is also an  admitted fact that the complaint in the present case is made against  the first respondent and others when first respondent was on bail  granted to him in other cases. It is also an admitted fact that in one  of the cases bail granted to the first respondent has been cancelled  by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that he has violated  the conditions of bail. We are informed at the bar subsequently he  has come out on bail in that case also. Be that as it may, from the  nature of allegation made in this case which involves the death of  one of the victims and from the nature of weapon used in the said  crime and in the background of the fact that admittedly atleast 7  other cases involving very serious charges against this respondent  are pending trial, some of them committed after obtaining bail in  other cases tentatively atleast indicates for the purpose of  considering the merits of this appeal that the first respondent herein  has violated the conditions of bail granted in the earlier cases and  in the event of he being enlarged on bail there is every likelihood  of he interfering with the investigation of this case, threatening the  witnesses and may even go to the extent of causing physical harm  to the complainant and others. Having perused the material on  record and the judgment of the Sessions Court canceling the bail in  another case, we are satisfied that this is a fit case in which the bail  granted to the first respondent by the High Court should be  cancelled and we intend doing so.  However, before concluding, we must advert to another  aspect of this case which has caused some concern to us. In the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

recent past, we had several occasions to notice that the High Courts  by recording the concessions shown by the counsel in the criminal  proceedings refrain from assigning any reason even in orders by  which it reverses the orders of the lower courts. In our opinion, this  is not proper if such orders are appealable, be it on the ground of  concession shown by the learned counsel appearing for the parties  or on the ground that assigning of elaborate reasons might  prejudice the future trial before the lower courts. The High Court  should not, unless for very good reasons desist from indicating the  grounds on which their orders are based because when the matters  are brought up in appeal, the court of appeal has every reason to  know the basis on which the impugned order has been made. It  may be that while concurring with the lower courts’ 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 orders. This Court in a somewhat similar  situation has deprecated the practice of non-speaking orders in the  case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagdev Singh Talwandi (AIR  1984 SC 444), that was a case where the High Court in a detention  order while allowing the challenge to the detention order directed  the release of the detenue before it could give a reasoned order.  Even such a practice was deprecated by a Constitution Bench of  this Court. Whereas in the instant case it is a final order reversing  the order of the learned Sessions Judge wherein the High Court  thought it not necessary to give the reasons on the ground that the  counsel appearing for the parties did not press for a reasoned order.  Consequently, when the matter was taken up for hearing, we had  no benefit of the reasons which persuaded the High Court to pass  the impugned order. Hence, we have proceeded to decide the  appeal on merit based on the material available on record and the  arguments addressed before us, from which we have come to the  conclusion that the impugned order ought to be set aside. Though a  prayer was made on behalf of the first respondent that the matter  be remanded to the High Court to facilitate it to pass a reasoned  order, on facts of this case, we think it proper to decide the issue  before us ourselves without prolonging the proceeding any further  by remanding it to the High Court. But we do record our  disapproval of the practice followed by the High Court reflected in  the impugned order and hope the same will not be repeated. For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds. The bail  granted to the first respondent is cancelled. He is directed to  surrender within a week from today. On failure to do so, the  concerned police are directed to take necessary steps to arrest the  first respondent. Any expression of opinion found in this order is purely  tentative and for the disposal of this appeal. The same shall not, in  any manner, prejudice the parties in the trial of the pending cases. The appeal is allowed.