Phiroz Ibrahim Khan Vs.
Ismail Ibrahim Sayeed & ANR.  INSC 92 (19 January 2009)
JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 90 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)
1505/2008) Phiroz Ibrahim Khan ...Appellant(s) Versus Ismail Ibrahim Sayeed
& Anr. ...Respondent(s) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2009 (Arising out of
SLP(Crl.) No. 1647/2008) State of Maharashtra ...Appellant(s) versus Ismail
Ibrahim Sayeed ... Respondent(s) ORDER Leave granted.
These two appeals
have been filed by the State and by the complainant against order, dated
December 27, 2007, passed by the High Court of judicature at Bombay in Criminal
Application No. 4145 of 2007, whereby the High Court has granted anticipatory
bail to the respondent-Ismail Ibrahim Sayeed.
Accordingly to the
appellants, since there are serious allegations against the respondent in the
charge-sheet, the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to him.
Learned counsel for
the respondent, on the other hand, while supporting the order passed by the
High Court, has submitted that the incident had taken place due to business
rivalry and further no specific role having been attributed to the respondent,
the High Court was justified in granting anticipatory bail to the respondent.
Learned counsel has pointed out that during the pendency of these appeals, the
respondent had moved an application for grant of regular bail before the trial
Court. However, the said application was opposed by the complainant, inter
alia, on the ground that the order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent
had been challenged before this Court and the special leave petitions were
pending. Taking note of the said fact, the trial Court has declined to
entertain the application filed by the respondent for grant of bail. A copy of
order dated October 17, 2008, has been placed on record.
Bearing in mind the
fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed against the respondent and
the trial Court is seized of the matter, we feel that it would be appropriate
if the respondent is permitted to file a fresh application before the trial
Court for grant of regular bail.
..3/- Crl.As. 90
dispose of the appeals with liberty to the respondent to apply for regular bail
before the trial Court within two weeks from the receipt of the copy of this
order. As and when such an application is preferred, the same shall be considered
on its own merits, uninfluenced by order dated December 27, 2007, passed by the
High Court, granting anticipatory bail to the said respondent. We further
direct that the order passed by the High Court, impugned in these appeals,
shall remain in force till respondent's application for grant of regular bail
is disposed of. The trial Court would do will to dispose of the bail
application expeditiously, preferably within four weeks of its presentation.
[ D.K. JAIN ]
[ R.M. LODHA ]