Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

IMRAN ALI versus HABIBULLAH AND ANR.

Decided
19 March 2007
Judges listed
B.P. SINGH, H.S. BEDI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2007] 4 S.C.R. 183 · 2007 INSC 311
Also cited as
  • (2007) 4 SCALE 610 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

We have heard counsel for the Parties.

p. 183, margin G

2

It 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.

p. 184, margin A

3

While 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.

p. 184, margin D

4

The Special leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly. RP. SLP disposed of.

p. 184, margin D