1. Appeal against High Court order granting bail to murder convicts pending appeal under Section 389 CrPC. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 309
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Brijesh Kumar : D.P.Mohapatra
Vinay Kumar
Versus
Narendra
Case No. : 353 of 2002
Date of Decision : 3/5/02
Important Points
Granting bail to a person convicted of murder pending appeal is an exceptional measure. Courts must record specific reasons and consider the gravity of the offence and the nature of the crime before exercising discretion to suspend the sentence.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail and Suspension of Sentence
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 389 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with Section 34 - Suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal - Conviction for murder - In cases involving serious offences like murder, the court must consider factors such as the nature of the accusation, the manner in which the crime was committed, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused after conviction (Para 9) - Suspension of sentence is generally an exceptional course in murder cases and should not be granted without recording specific reasons or exceptional circumstances (Paras 7 and 9).
(B) Discretionary Power - Exercise of discretion by the appellate court in granting bail must be based on a consideration of relevant factors and should not be recorded in a cryptic manner without supporting reasons (Paras 6 and 9).
Facts of the case:
The first informant challenged an order of the High Court which granted bail to respondents who had been convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court. The High Court had released the respondents on bail through a brief order stating it was a fit case, without recording specific reasons or identifying exceptional circumstances.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court erred in granting bail without indicating any exceptional circumstances or recording reasons based on the gravity of the offence and the nature of the crime. The court observed that the High Court did not consider the relevant factors necessary for granting discretionary relief of bail pending an appeal in a serious murder conviction.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to convicted persons in a murder case without recording reasons or indicating exceptional circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the normal practice in cases where an accused is found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not to suspend the sentence. The benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal can only be granted in exceptional cases, requiring the court to specifically analyze the nature of the accusation, the manner of the crime, and the gravity of the offence.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Discretionary Power - Exercise of discretion by the appellate court in granting bail must be based on a consideration of relevant factors and should not be recorded in a cryptic manner without supporting reasons (Paras 6 and 9).
Facts of the case:
The first informant challenged an order of the High Court which granted bail to respondents who had been convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court. The High Court had released the respondents on bail through a brief order stating it was a fit case, without recording specific reasons or identifying exceptional circumstances.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court erred in granting bail without indicating any exceptional circumstances or recording reasons based on the gravity of the offence and the nature of the crime. The court observed that the High Court did not consider the relevant factors necessary for granting discretionary relief of bail pending an appeal in a serious murder conviction.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to convicted persons in a murder case without recording reasons or indicating exceptional circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the normal practice in cases where an accused is found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not to suspend the sentence. The benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal can only be granted in exceptional cases, requiring the court to specifically analyze the nature of the accusation, the manner of the crime, and the gravity of the offence.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued serious offence warrants no bail; respondents argued discretionary bail power properly exercised. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. High Court erred in granting bail without recording reasons or exceptional circumstances for the serious murder conviction. (Para 9 )
4. Bail pending appeal under Section 389 CrPC requires exceptional circumstances and consideration of relevant factors for serious offences. (Para 7 , 9 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court bail order set aside; trial court directed to take steps for arrest. (Para 10 )
6. What factors must an appellate court consider under Section 389 CrPC when granting bail after a murder conviction?
The court must consider the nature of accusation, manner of crime, gravity of offence, and desirability of bail after conviction for serious offences. (Para 9 )
7. Is it proper to grant bail under Section 389 CrPC without recording reasons?
No, the appellate court must record reasons or indicate exceptional circumstances justifying bail for serious offences like murder. (Para 7 , 9 )
8. What is the normal practice regarding suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC for a murder conviction?
The normal practice is not to suspend the sentence; the benefit can only be granted in exceptional cases. (Para 7 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3) THIS appeal filed by the first informant is directed against the order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the respondents on consideration of the petition filed by them under section 389, Criminal Procedure Code in criminal appeal no 854/2001 The respondents were convicted under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 for committing the murder of Ram Charan Singh, who is father of the appellant, on 15th June, 1992 between 10. 00 a.m to 11. 00 a.m
(4) THE prosecution case shortly stated was that the incident took place when the deceased accompanied by his two sons, the appellant, Vijay Kumar and Ajay Kumar went to inspect the agricultural operations on his land in village Suaheri There the respondents and the accused Amit Mohan, who is absconding, killed Ram Charan Singh by firing from the pistols carried by them The appellant lodged the first information report On receipt of the same, the police swung into action, conducted investigation and submitted the charge-sheet in the case
(5) ON conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge, on appreciation of the evidence placed before him found the respondents guilty of charge, convicted them for the offence of murder punishable under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to life imprisonment
(6) IN the appeal filed by the respondents, the High Court by a cryptic order passed on 27th March, 2001 released the appellants on bail The relevant portion of the order reads thus
"MR Misra, contended that the appellants were on bail during trial Perused the findings recorded by the trial court, it is a fit case for grant of bail Let appellants-Narendra, Habir and Kamendra @ Chilli be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned in S.T. No 258 of 92."
The said order is under challenge
(7) THE main thrust of the arguments of Mr.R.B.Mehrotra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, is that the High Court, on the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings recorded by learned trial court, committed error in granting bail to the appellants in the appeal pending in the court He submitted that in view of the serious nature of the offence, the gravity of the accusations, the manner in which the crime was committed, the conduct of the accused persons in delaying the trial, the High Court should not have exercised its discretion to grant bail to them Mr. R.B. Mehrotra, placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal & Anr. Reported in [JT 2000 (7) SC 477], wherein this Court considering the power of suspension of sentence under section 389(1) Cr.P.C. observed
"ABSOLUTELY no reason is shown by the learned single judge for adopting this exceptional course in a case where an accused was found guilty by the trial court under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code The normal practice in such cases is not to suspend the sentence and it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted."
(8) SHRI Tripurari Ray, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand contended that the power to suspend the sentence and to grant bail under section 389(1) Cr.P.C are distinct and separate powers to be exercised by the appellate court. He further contended that the power to grant or refuse bail is at the discretion of the court and the order passed in exercise of such discretionary jurisdiction in the present case should not be interfered with by this Court. Drawing our attention to some of the contentions raised on behalf of the defence before the trial court, the learned counsel submitted that there are many unsatisfactory features in the judgment of the trial court which give rise to a fair assumption that the respondents are likely to succeed in the
