ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2 . Leave granted.

3. The de facto complainant has filed these appeals challenging the order of the High Court dated 26-6-2003, whereby the two respondent-accused d involved in Case Crime No. 662 of 2002 for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code have been directed to be released on bail.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is cryptic and the order granting bail has been passed without even considering the contentions seriously urged before the High Court including the contention that the accused are hardened criminals and are involved in a e number of cases, details of which were submitted before the High Court. The details have also been furnished to this Court.

5. Though it is correct that detailed examination of the merits of the case is not required by the courts while considering an application for bail but, at the same time, the exercise of discretion has to be based on well-settled principles and in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. This Court f in Chaman Lal v. State of U.P1 has laid down some of the factors, amongst others, to be taken into consideration while