LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/aminuddin-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-another-20210315/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Aminuddin vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
15 March 2021
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2021
Result
Allowed
Bench
D.Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah
Citation
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 264 : 2021 INSC 181
Supreme Court Reports [2021] 7 S.C.R. 264 : 2021 INSC 181
Headnote

Constitution of India: Arts. 136, 21 – Invocation of jurisdiction under – In a matter involving serious offence of murder, grant of bail by High Court – On appeal, held: Undoubtedly, the protection of personal liberty u/Art. 21 is a constitutional value which has to be respected by the High Court, as indeed by all courts – Equally, in a matter involving serious offence of murder, the liberty of the accused has to be necessarily balanced with the public interest in the administration of criminal justice system which requires that a person who is accused of a crime is held to account – High Court failed to notice relevant considerations and the settled principles while granting bail – Thus, the order of the High Court set aside – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 438.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: There can be no manner of doubt that the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is a constitutional value which has to be respected by the High Court, as indeed by all courts. Equally, in a matter such as the present, where a serious offence of murder has taken place, the liberty of the accused has to be necessarily balanced with the public interest in the administration of criminal justice system which requires that a person who is accused of a crime is held to account. Having regard to the settled principles which govern the grant of bail in a matter involving a serious offence in a case such as the present, the order of the High Court does not clearly pass muster. In granting bail, the High Court failed to notice relevant considerations which ought to have been, but have not been taken into account. Thus, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 8, 9][268-A-D] Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118 – referred to.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, the informant at whose behest FIR No 438 of 2019 was registered on 10 July 2019 at Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj, U.P., has moved this Court aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25 February 2020 granting bail to the second respondent. 3. Briefly stated, the First Information Report was registered at the behest of the appellant who is the father of the deceased. The FIR states that on 10
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →