Key Points: - The High Court rightly applied discretionary power under Section 389 CrPC to enlarge the respondents on bail because appeals and revisions were pending and convictions were not yet confirmed (!) . - The respondents had previously been granted bail and did not misuse liberty, and they conceded to the occurrence with a different version, which the Court noted in its reasoning (!) . - The Court emphasized that the chance of the appeal being heard in the near future was extremely remote, influencing the bail decision (!) . - The appellant challenged the High Court’s bail order on the basis that reasons for granting bail under Section 389 CrPC should be recorded in writing, citing Section 389 and related case law, but the Court upheld the High Court’s decision to grant bail (!) (!) . - The judgment clarifies that when convictions are not yet confirmed by the appellate court, it is permissible for the appellate court to grant bail under Section 389 CrPC based on discretionary reasoning, especially where appeals are pending and there is no misuse of liberty (!) . - The proceedings indicate that both the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision were pending before the High Court, affecting finality of convictions for bail considerations (!) (!) .

How to determine whether High Court properly exercised its discretionary power under Section 389 CrPC to grant bail when appeals are pending?

What is the effect of pending Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision on the finality of convictions for bail purposes?

What are the grounds required for recording reasons in writing when enlarging an accused on bail under Section 389 CrPC?