# Smt. Santosh Jain & Ors v. Kewal Kishore & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 6
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-17
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 9445 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-santosh-jain-ors-v-kewal-kishore-anr-52706
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Whether application as mandated under Order
XXI Rule 10 read with Rule 11(2) CPC should
have been signed by decree-holder and Power
of Attorney holder did not have any right to
move the same.

Head Notes
The Code of Civil Procedure-1908-Sections
47 & 151, Order XXI Rule 10 read with
Rule 11(2); The Constitution of India,
1950-Article
227-
The
signing
and
verification of an application moved for
execution of a decree cannot be equated
with that of verification of pleading as
mandated under Order VI Rule 15 CPC. As
Rule 15 of Order VI clearly provides that
every pleading shall be verified at the foot
by the party or by one of the parties
pleading or some other person proved to
the satisfaction of the Court to be
acquainted with the facts of the case,
while the application for execution of a
decree can be moved by signing and
verifying either by decree-holder or by
some
other
person
proved
to
the
satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted
with the facts of the case and the
application shall contain in a tabular form
the particulars enumerated from Clause
(a) to (j) in sub-rule (2) of Rule 11. (E-15)

Held- The objection raised by judgmentdebtors/petitioners
objecting
to
the
said
execution proceedings are thoroughly misplaced
in view of Section 11(2) of Order XXI- The
argument raised by petitioners' that application
for execution needs to be mandatorily signed by
decree-holder is thoroughly misplaced from the
reading of Rule 11(2). Both Rule 10 and 11(2)
are to be read in harmony and not in isolation.
(Para 15 & 17)

Case Law Cited
Karnataka Housing Board vs. K.A. Nagamani,
Civil Appeal No. 4631 of 2019, decided on
06.05.2019;Dastagir
Hussain
Nadaf
vs.
Maharashtra
Apex
Corporation
Ltd.,
1986
Supreme (Kar) 341.;Kopargaon Big Bagayatkar
Vividha Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd. vs.
Deorao Sakharam Pawar and others, AIR 1976
Bom 333;Ghulam Navi Seh vs. Gaffer Wagey,
AIR 1983 J&K 67;International Security and
Intelligence
Agency
Ltd.
vs.
Municipal
Corporation of Delhi and others, AIR 2002 Delhi
347;Periyammal vs. Rajamani, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 507;Rahul S. Shah v. Jindendra Kumar
Gandhi reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418

List of Acts
The Code of Civil Procedure-1908; The
Constitution of India, 1950

List of Keywords
Application for execution of a decree;
signing and verifying either by decreeholder; or by some other person proved to
the satisfaction of the Court to be
acquainted with the facts of the case;
Order XXI Rule 10 ; Rule 11(2); 47 & 151
C.P.C

Case Arising From
The executing court rejected the application
under Section 47 CPC which was challenged
through Revision which has been dismissed by
order dated 11.08.2025. Hence, the present writ
petition.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Agrawal,
Harsh
Vardhan
Gupta
10 All. Smt. Santosh Jain & Ors. Vs. Kewal Kishore & Anr.
7
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Pankaj Agarwal

## Text

6 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
---------
(2025) 10 ILRA 6
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 9445 of 2025

Smt. Santosh Jain & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Kewal Kishore & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ashish Agrawal, Harsh Vardhan Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Pankaj Agarwal

Issue for Consideration
Whether application as mandated under Order
XXI Rule 10 read with Rule 11(2) CPC should
have been signed by decree-holder and Power
of Attorney holder did not have any right to
move the same.

Head Notes
The Code of Civil Procedure-1908-Sections
47 & 151, Order XXI Rule 10 read with
Rule 11(2); The Constitution of India,
1950-Article
227-
The
signing
and
verification of an application moved for
execution of a decree cannot be equated
with that of verification of pleading as
mandated under Order VI Rule 15 CPC. As
Rule 15 of Order VI clearly provides that
every pleading shall be verified at the foot
by the party or by one of the parties
pleading or some other person proved to
the satisfaction of the Court to be
acquainted with the facts of the case,
while the application for execution of a
decree can be moved by signing and
verifying either by decree-holder or by
some
other
person
proved
to
the
satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted
with the facts of the case and the
application shall contain in a tabular form
the particulars enumerated from Clause
(a) to (j) in sub-rule (2) of Rule 11. (E-15)

Held- The objection raised by judgmentdebtors/petitioners
objecting
to
the
said
execution proceedings are thoroughly misplaced
in view of Section 11(2) of Order XXI- The
argument raised by petitioners' that application
for execution needs to be mandatorily signed by
decree-holder is thoroughly misplaced from the
reading of Rule 11(2). Both Rule 10 and 11(2)
are to be read in harmony and not in isolation.
(Para 15 & 17)

Case Law Cited
Karnataka Housing Board vs. K.A. Nagamani,
Civil Appeal No. 4631 of 2019, decided on
06.05.2019;Dastagir
Hussain
Nadaf
vs.
Maharashtra
Apex
Corporation
Ltd.,
1986
Supreme (Kar) 341.;Kopargaon Big Bagayatkar
Vividha Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd. vs.
Deorao Sakharam Pawar and others, AIR 1976
Bom 333;Ghulam Navi Seh vs. Gaffer Wagey,
AIR 1983 J&K 67;International Security and
Intelligence
Agency
Ltd.
vs.
Municipal
Corporation of Delhi and others, AIR 2002 Delhi
347;Periyammal vs. Rajamani, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 507;Rahul S. Shah v. Jindendra Kumar
Gandhi reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418

List of Acts
The Code of Civil Procedure-1908; The
Constitution of India, 1950

List of Keywords
Application for execution of a decree;
signing and verifying either by decreeholder; or by some other person proved to
the satisfaction of the Court to be
acquainted with the facts of the case;
Order XXI Rule 10 ; Rule 11(2); 47 & 151
C.P.C

Case Arising From
The executing court rejected the application
under Section 47 CPC which was challenged
through Revision which has been dismissed by
order dated 11.08.2025. Hence, the present writ
petition.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Agrawal,
Harsh
Vardhan
Gupta
10 All. Smt. Santosh Jain & Ors. Vs. Kewal Kishore & Anr.
7
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Pankaj Agarwal

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. Petitioners, before this Court, are
judgment-debtors whose objection filed
under Section 47 of Code of Civil
Procedure (CPC) was rejected and revision
filed, thereafter, has also been dismissed.

2. Facts, leading rise to present
petition, are that one Late Aatma Ram was
tenant of Shop No. 13/1091 situated in
Bazar Fazalganj, Saharanpur. Respondent
no. 1, Kewal Kishore, the decree-holder
instituted a S.C.C. Suit No. 64 of 1978 for
arrears
of
rent
and
ejectment.
On
01.12.1981, he executed Power of Attorney
in favour of his father Gurudas Mal for
contesting the suit, filing vakalatnama,
filing of affidavit appointing advocate etc.
The suit was decreed on 13.08.1993.
Against the said judgment, a S.C.C.
revision
was
filed
which
was
also
dismissed on 22.08.1994. The matter
travelled upto Hon'ble Supreme Court and
SLP
filed
by
judgment-debtor
was
converted into Civil Appeal No. 4433 of
1993 which was dismissed on 30.11.2000.

3.
Plaintiff-decree-holder
filed
Execution Case No. 27 of 2002. During
pendency of execution case, judgmentdebtor Aatma Ram died. His son Pradeep
Kumar Jain was substituted, who also died
on 29.07.2016 and present petitioners were
substituted as legal heirs on 16.02.2017. An
application under Section 47 read with
Section 151 CPC was filed by petitioners in
execution
proceedings
which
was
registered as Misc. Case No. 21 of 2018.

4. Decree-holder filed his objection
stating that Power of Attorney holder
Gurudas Mal has signed the execution
application and has every right to obtain
possession of property in dispute. The
application moved under Section 47 CPC
was rejected on 18.05.2018, against which
S.C.C. Revision No. 7 of 2018 was filed,
which was partly allowed and the case was
remitted back by order dated 17.07.2018 to
executing court to re-adjudicate the Misc.
Case No. 21 of 2018. Post remand,
executing court again rejected the misc.
case on 11.12.2024, against which a
Revision No. 140 of 2024 was filed which
was dismissed on 15.01.2025. Both the
orders dated 11.12.2024 and 15.01.2025
were challenged before the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Matters under
Article 227 No. 941 of 2025. The coordinate Bench disposed of the case on
31.01.2025 remanding back the matter to
be decided afresh. The executing court
again
on
11.03.2025
rejected
the
application under Section 47 CPC which
was challenged through Revision No. 55 of
2025 which has been dismissed by order
dated 11.08.2025. Hence, the present writ
petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that application as mandated
under Order XXI Rule 10 read with Rule
11(2) CPC should have been signed by
decree-holder and Power of Attorney
holder did not have any right to move the
same. According to petitioners' counsel,
Power
of
Attorney
holder
was
not
authorised by plaintiff-decree holder to
contest the execution proceedings and
Power of Attorney was only in respect of
suit proceedings. He further contended that
the word, "shall" appearing in Rule 10 of
Order XXI mandates that provision is
mandatory in nature and there cannot be
any deviation and decree-holder has to sign
the application before it is moved for
8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
execution. He further submits that Rule
11(2) contemplates that Court has to record
satisfaction that execution application is in
accordance with law, while in the instant
case, the court below has clearly recorded
that there was no Power of Attorney in
favour of Gurudas Mal, father of decree
holder in regard to execution proceedings
and the defect having been occurred cannot
be cured. Reliance has been placed upon a
decision
of
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
rendered in case of Karnataka Housing
Board vs. K.A. Nagamani, Civil Appeal
No. 4631 of 2019, decided on 06.05.2019
and decision of Karnataka High Court
rendered in case of Dastagir Hussain
Nadaf
vs.
Maharashtra
Apex
Corporation Ltd., 1986 Supreme (Kar)
341.

6.
Counsel
for
the
respondents
submitted that Rule 10 has to be read in
harmony with Rule 11(2) of Order XXI.
According to him, Gurudas Mal was having
Power of Attorney since 1981 and has been
conducting proceedings on behalf of his
son, the decree-holder for last 40 years.
According to him, the language employed
in
Rule
11(2)
clearly
speaks
that
application be signed and verified by the
applicant or some other person proved to
the satisfaction of the Court to be
acquainted with the facts of the case.

7. In the instant case, Gurudas Mal
being
father
of
decree-holder
was
contesting the case for last 40 years and
was well acquainted with the facts of the
case and comes under the words 'some
other person' and the application moved is
to the satisfaction of the court, thus,
application moved under Section 47 CPC is
only to linger on the execution of decree
which is of the year 1993 having been
affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. He
thus submitted that a highly technical
objection has been raised by petitioners to
delay the execution proceedings which is
pending for last 23 years. Reliance has
been placed upon the decision rendered by
Bombay High Court in case of Kopargaon
Big
Bagayatkar
Vividha
Karyakari
Sahakari
Society
Ltd.
vs.
Deorao
Sakharam Pawar and others, AIR 1976
Bom 333 and decision of Jammu and
Kashmir High Court rendered in case of
Ghulam Navi Seh vs. Gaffer Wagey, AIR
1983 J&K 67.

8. I have heard respective counsel for
the parties and perused the material on
record.

9. The short question which needs
adjudication of this Court is as to the
interpretation of Rule 10 and Rule 11(2) of
Order XXI.

10. It is an admitted case to both the
parties that shop in dispute was let out to
one Aatma Ram by Kewal Kishore for
which suit for ejectment and arrears of rent
was filed in the year 1978. The decreeholder had executed a Power of Attorney in
favour of his father in the year 1981. Since
then Gurudas Mal, Power of Attorney
holder has been contesting the suit and,
thereafter, revision filed by judgmentdebtor. The matter in regard to arrears of
rent and ejectment had already attained
finality by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court dated 30.11.2000.

11. Execution proceeding was initiated
in the year 2002 on the application made by
Power of Attorney holder Gurudas Mal
who signed and verified the same. Initially,
execution case was contested by original
judgment-debtor Aatma Ram, but after his
death, Pradeep Kumar Jain continued to
10 All. Smt. Santosh Jain & Ors. Vs. Kewal Kishore & Anr.
9
appear in the execution case till 2016. It
was after his death that petitioners who are
legal heirs had moved an application under
Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC
which was registered as Misc. Case No. 21
of
2018
taking
objection
that
the
application was not signed by decreeholder himself in terms of Rule 10 of Order
XXI and, thus, execution case was not
maintainable.

12. Before adverting to decide the
issue in hand, a cursory glance of Rule 10
and Rule 11(2) of Order XXI is necessary
for the better appreciation of the case,
which are extracted hereasunder:-

"10. Application for execution. -
Where the holder of a decree desires to
execute it, he shall apply to the Court
which passed the decree or to the officer (if
any) appointed in this behalf, or if the
decree has been sent under the provisions
hereinbefore contained to another Court
then to such Court or to the proper office
thereof.

11. Oral application. - (1) ***

(2) Written application. - Save as
otherwise provided by sub-rule (1), every
application for the execution of a decree
shall be in writing, signed and verified by
the applicant or by some other person
proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be
acquainted with the facts of the case, and
shall contain in a tabular form the
following particulars, namely:-

(a) the number of the suit;

(b) the names of the parties;

(c) the date of the decree;

(d) whether any appeal has been
preferred from the decree;

(e) whether any, and (if any)
what, payment of other adjustment of the
matter in controversy has been made
between the parties subsequently to the
decree;

(f) whether any, and (if any)
what, previous applications have been
made for the execution of the decree, the
dates of such applications and their results;

(g) the amount with interest (if
any) due upon the decree, or other relief
granted thereby, together with particulars
of any cross-decree, whether passed before
or after the date of the decree sought to be
executed;

(h) the amount of the costs (if
any) awarded;

(i) the name of the person against
whom execution of the decree is sought;
and

(j) the mode in which the
assistance of the Court is required,
whether-

(i) by the delivery of any property
specifically decreed;

(ii) by the attachment, or by the
attachment and sale, or by the sale without
attachment, of any property;]

(iii) by the arrest and detention in
prison of any person;

(iv) by the appointment of a
receiver;
10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(v) otherwise as the nature of the
relief granted may require."

13. Rule 10 provides for application
for execution, where a decree-holder
desires to get a decree executed, he shall
apply to the Court which passed the decree
or to the officer appointed in this behalf.
While Rule 11 is divided into two parts.
Sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 provides for oral
application where the decree is for payment
of money, while sub-rule (2) of Rule 11
provides
for
a
written
application.
According to sub-rule (2) of Rule 11, the
application has to be in writing, signed and
verified by the applicant or some other
person proved to the satisfaction of the
Court.

14. Thus, from the reading of Rule 10
and Rule 11(2), it is amply clear that they
are complimentary to each other and in no
way they restrict or curtail the provisions
contained therein. Rule 11(2) is intended to
convey that decree-holder himself need not
make an application for getting the decree
executed and the same may be moved by
some
other
person
proved
to
the
satisfaction of the Court who is well
acquainted with the facts of the case and
the application contains in a tabular form,
the particulars enumerated therein from
Clause (a) to (j) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 11.

15.
The
argument
raised
by
petitioners' counsel that application for
execution needs to be mandatorily signed
by decree-holder is thoroughly misplaced
from the reading of Rule 11(2). Both Rule
10 and 11(2) are to be read in harmony and
not in isolation.

16. Reliance placed upon decision of
Apex Court in case of K.A. Nagamani
(supra) does not help the case of
petitioners as it is well settled that
execution proceedings are separate and
independent proceedings for execution of
decree and they cannot be considered to be
continuation of original suit. Reliance
placed upon the other judgment of
Dastagir Hussain Nadaf (supra) is
distinguishable from the present case.

17. The signing and verification of an
application moved for execution of a
decree cannot be equated with that of
verification of pleading as mandated under
Order VI Rule 15 CPC. As Rule 15 of
Order VI clearly provides that every
pleading shall be verified at the foot by the
party or by one of the parties pleading or
some
other
person
proved
to
the
satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted
with the facts of the case, while the
application for execution of a decree can be
moved by signing and verifying either by
decree-holder or by some other person
proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be
acquainted with the facts of the case and
the application shall contain in a tabular
form the particulars enumerated from
Clause (a) to (j) in sub-rule (2) of Rule 11.

18. The verification of a pleading and
execution of a decree cannot be placed on
the same pedestal as has been held by Delhi
High Court in case of International
Security and Intelligence Agency Ltd. vs.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and
others, AIR 2002 Delhi 347. Relevant
paras 7 and 8 are extracted hereasunder:-

"7. I am afraid an execution
petition cannot be placed on the same
pedestal as the pleadings of the suit viz. the
plaint, the written statement, replication
which have to be necessarily in the form of
paragraphs. The facts of pleadings are put
in such a mode that may require
10 All. Smt. Santosh Jain & Ors. Vs. Kewal Kishore & Anr.
11
verification
as
contemplated
by
the
aforesaid order. On the other hand, there is
a prescribed proforma having more than
11 columns for execution petition in respect
of which information is to be provided by
the applicant.

8. Though the information as to
the name of the parties, date of the decree
in tabular form cannot be provided the
status of "paragraph" of pleadings in a suit
yet such columns have to be referred as
"paras" in the "verification" appearing at
the foot of the execution petition. In
common parlace and as per dictionary
meaning the word "paragraph" is defined
as 'a distinct section of a piece of writing, a
symbol used to mark a new paragraph and
also a reference mark". This is why
requirement of Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC
are deemed to be fulfilled if the verification
is to the satisfaction of the Court. It is the
satisfaction of the Court which is material
for the purpose of accepting or rejecting
verification. In the pleadings of the
aforesaid nature, party may be required to
verify as to which of the paragraphs are
verified to be true out of his knowledge and
which of the paragraphs are verified to be
true upon information and believed to be
true. Thus, it is the satisfaction of the Court
with
regard
to
the
sufficieny
and
correctness of the information provided by
the petitioner that is paramount."

19. In the instant case, Power of
Attorney holder Gurudas Mal, father of
decree-holder has been contesting the case
since 1981. The execution application has
been signed and verified by him detailing
the particulars as required under Rule 11(2)
from Clause (a) to (j). The objection as to
the
maintainability
of
the
execution
application at his behest has been rightly
sustained by executing court as well as the
revisional court.

20. The objection raised by judgmentdebtors/petitioners objecting to the said
execution
proceedings
are
thoroughly
misplaced in view of Section 11(2) of
Order XXI.

21.
Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, I find that no
case for interference is made out.

22. Writ petition fails and is hereby
dismissed.

23. Recently, the Apex Court, on
06.03.2025, in Periyammal vs. Rajamani,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 507 considering the
earlier judgment of the Apex Court
rendered in case of Rahul S. Shah v.
Jindendra Kumar Gandhi reported in
(2021) 6 SCC 418 had held that the
execution proceedings should be concluded
expeditiously. Relevant paragraphs are
extracted hereasunder:-

"72. Before we close this matter,
we firmly believe that we should say
something as regards the long and
inordinate delay at the end of the Executing
Courts across the country in deciding
execution petitions.

73. It is worthwhile to revisit the
observations in Rahul S. Shah (supra)
wherein this Court has provided guidelines
and directions for conduct of execution
proceedings. The relevant portion of the
said judgment is reproduced below:

42. All courts dealing with suits
and
execution
proceedings
shall
mandatorily follow the below mentioned
directions:
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

42.1. In suits relating to delivery
of possession, the court must examine the
parties to the suit under Order 10 in
relation to third-party interest and further
exercise the power under Order 11 Rule 14
asking parties to disclose and produce
documents, upon oath, which are in
possession
of
the
parties
including
declaration
pertaining
to
third-party
interest in such properties.

***

42.5. The court must, before
passing the decree, pertaining to delivery
of possession of a property ensure that the
decree is unambiguous so as to not only
contain clear description of the property
but also having regard to the status of the
property.

***

42.8.
The
court
exercising
jurisdiction under Section 47 or under
Order 21 CPC, must not issue notice on
an application of third party claiming
rights in a mechanical manner. Further,
the court should refrain from entertaining
any such application(s) that has already
been considered by the court while
adjudicating the suit or which raises any
such issue which otherwise could have
been raised
and determined
during
adjudication of suit if due diligence was
exercised by the applicant.

42.9. The court should allow
taking of evidence during the execution
proceedings only in exceptional and rare
cases where the question of fact could not
be decided by resorting to any other
expeditious method like appointment of
Commissioner or calling for electronic
materials including photographs or video
with affidavits.

42.10.
The
court
must
in
appropriate cases where it finds the
objection or resistance or claim to be
frivolous or mala fide, resort to sub-rule
(2) of Rule 98 of Order 21 as well as grant
compensatory costs in accordance with
Section 35-A.

***

42.12. The executing court must
dispose of the execution proceedings
within six months from the date of filing,
which may be extended only by recording
reasons in writing for such delay.

***
(Emphasis supplied)

74. The mandatory direction
contained in Para 42.12 of Rahul S. Shah
(supra)
requiring
the
execution
proceedings to be completed within six
months from the date of filing, has been
reiterated by this Court in its order in Bhoj
Raj Garg v. Goyal Education and Welfare
Society, Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.
19654 of 2022."

24. Looking to the fact that decree is
of the year 1993 and the matter has already
attained finality by Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the Executing Court is hereby
directed to proceed with Execution Case
No. 27 of 2002 and decide the same in the
light of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court
within a period of two months, from the
date of production of certified copy of this
order.
10 All. Asha Vs. State of U.P.
13
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 13
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13193 of
2025
&
Connected With Other Cases

Asha ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Madhu Ranjan Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A

Issue for Consideration
Whether, after conclusion or near conclusion of
prosecution evidence, an accused can be
enlarged on bail to enable effective preparation
and conduct of defence, including gathering of
defence
evidence
and
participation
in
proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and
Section 233 Cr.P.C., and if so, what are the
parameters governing grant of such bail,
consistent with the guarantee of fair trial under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.
439, 313, 233
-
Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - ss. 351, 256 -
Bail
-
Second
bail
application
-
Prosecution evidence concluded - Bail for
preparation and conduct of defence - Fair
trial - Article 21 of Constitution -
Parameters for grant of bail.

Held:
Preparation
of
defence,
including
conceptualisation of defence strategy, gathering
and adducing defence evidence, and effective
participation in proceedings under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and thereafter under Section 233 Cr.P.C.,
is not a mere formality but an essential and
substantive component of a fair trial, flowing
directly from Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. [Paras 38, 44-46, 82-83]

After the prosecution evidence has concluded or
is nearing completion, considerations such as
possibility of influencing witnesses recede into
the background, whereas the need to ensure
that the accused is afforded a real and
meaningful
opportunity
to
defend
himself
assumes prominence. Continued incarceration at
such a stage may disable the accused from
gathering defence evidence, obtaining effective
legal assistance, and prosecuting his defence,
thereby rendering the trial unfair. [Paras 58-59,
82-84]

Grant of bail for the purpose of defence is
neither automatic nor mechanical. The Court
must examine the nature and gravity of the
offence, criminal antecedents, conduct of the
accused during investigation and trial, likelihood
of misuse of liberty, and whether further
detention would operate punitively rather than
serve the ends of justice. [Paras 84-90]

The Court took judicial notice of structural
imbalances in the criminal justice system,
particularly the disparity between the resources
of the prosecution and the position of accused
persons
belonging
to
socio-economically
marginalised
sections,
and
held
that
constitutional courts are duty-bound to reinforce
safeguards to prevent miscarriage of justice.
[Paras 48-60]

It was held that grant of bail for defence, at the
appropriate
stage
and
upon
cumulative
consideration of relevant factors, is a critical
safeguard to realise the legislative intent
underlying Sections 313 and 233 Cr.P.C. and to
secure
one
of
the
most
indispensable
ingredients of a fair trial. [Paras 61-62, 82-90]

In the facts of the present case, the prosecution
evidence having concluded, the applicant having
cooperated in investigation and trial, absence of
criminal history, absence of any allegation of
witness-tampering, and the need to enable
effective defence, constituted sufficient grounds