Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389 – The three respondents were convicted for the murder of the appellant’s brother by the Trial Court and sentenced to life imprisonment – The order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court was challenged in appeal by the respondents before the High Court – Respondents prayed before the High Court that they be released on bail pending the final disposal of their appeals by suspending the substantive order of sentence of life imprisonment – High Court suspended sentence and ordered their release on bail – On appeal, held: The endeavour on the part of the Court should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal – While undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of acquittal, what is to be looked into is something palpable – Something which is very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable – The Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of s.389 and try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution, it is not correct approach – In the instant case, High Court has gone into the issues like political rivalry, delay in lodging the FIR, some over-writings in the First Information Report etc. – All these aspects, will have to be looked into at the time of the final hearing of the appeals filed by the convicts – High Court committed a serious error in suspending the substantive order of sentence of the convicts and their release on bail pending the final disposal of their criminal appeals – Order of High Court set aside – Convicts ordered to surrender. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. In Vijay Kumar, it was held that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, the court should consider the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they have been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder. [Para 31][162-G]
2. The endeavour on the part of the Court, therefore, should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. If the answer to the above said question is to be in the affirmative, as a necessary corollary, if ultimately the convict appears to be entitled to have an acquittal at the hands of this Court, he should not be kept behind the bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of the appeal, which usually take very long for decision and disposal. However, while undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of acquittal, what is to be looked into is something palpable. To put it in other words, something which is very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach. [Para 33][163-B-D]
3. In the case on hand, what the High Court has done is something impermissible. High Court has gone into the issues like political rivalry, delay in lodging the FIR, some over-writings in the First Information Report etc. All these aspects, will have to be looked into at the time of the final hearing of the appeals filed by the convicts. Upon cursory scanning of the evidence on record, this court is unable to agree with the contentions coming from the Senior Counsel for the convicts that, either there is ANR. ETC.
absolutely no case against the convicts or that the evidence against them is so weak and feeble in nature, that, ultimately in all probabilities the proceedings would terminate in their favour. For the very same reason this court was unable to accept the contention coming from the convicts through their Senior Counsel that, it would be meaningless, improper and unjust to keep them behind the bars for a pretty long time till they are found not to be guilty of the charges. [Para 34][163-E-G]
4. In the overall view of the matter, this Court is convinced that the High Court committed a serious error in suspending the substantive order of sentence of the convicts and their release on bail pending the final disposal of their criminal appeals. [Para 35][163-H]
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav Alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI (2007)
1 SCC 70 : [2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 40; Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh Alias Lalla Babu and Another (2012)
9 SCC 446 : [2012] 7 SCR 584; Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others v. State of Gujarat (1999) 4 SCC
421 : [1999] 3 SCR 545; Sidhartha Vashisht Alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2008) 5 SCC 230 : [2008] 8 SCR 220; Atul Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2014) 9 SCC 177 : [2014] 14 SCR 1188 – relied on.
Kishori Lal v. Rupa and Others (2004) 7 SCC 638 : [2004] 4 Suppl. SCR 628; Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and Others (2002) 9 SCC 364; Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and Another (2002) 9 SCC 366; Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC
281 : [2005] 3 SCR 630; Gomti v. Thakurdas and Others (2007) 11 SCC 160 : [2007] 5 SCR 90 – 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.