Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.389 – Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of accused on bail – Second respondent-accused was convicted by trial court under s.302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – Pending appeal, High Court allowed application filed under s.389 – Appeal by complainant – Held: With the introduction of the first proviso to s.389, the law giver has stipulated a particular procedure to be followed in a matter of releasing a person who stands convicted of serious offences as are indicated thereunde – Every law is intended to be followed – In the impugned orders, the mandate of the first proviso has not been followed – Grant of bail post conviction clearly stands on a different footing from grant of bail to an under-trial prisoner under s.439 – The argument for the second respondent that resort could be made to the second proviso in s.389 is misplaced – What the second proviso speaks about is that when a person is released on bail under s.389, it is open to the public prosecutor to seek cancellation of bail – Cancellation of bail apparently is intended to deal with cases of transgression of conditions based on the conduct of the appellant(applicant for bail) after the grant of bail essentially – The mandate of the first proviso must be observed in its own right – Therefore, in these cases, the impugned orders do not conform to the requirement of the law – High Court to take up the applications filed by the second respondent and to follow the procedure laid down in the s.389.
Atul Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2014)
9 SCC 177 : [2014] 14 SCR 1188 – relied on.
Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 2147 : [1978] 1 SCR 385 – 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.
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.