1. Criteria for granting bail to convicts with pending appeals — consideration of actual sentence undergone — policy strategy for prompt listing of bail applications. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 221
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
SAUDAN SINGH – Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent(s)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4633 of 2021
Decided On : 05-10-2021
Important Points
Prompt consideration of bail applications for convicts who have undergone a significant portion of their sentence is essential.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Proceedings
Headnote
Bail Criteria - High Court's Agreement - The Supreme Court expressed concerns about the proposed bail criteria, emphasizing the need for prompt consideration of bail applications for convicts who have undergone a significant portion of their sentence. The Court directed the High Court to present their policy strategy for expeditiously considering bail applications and transferred pending bail petitions to the High Court for urgent consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The Supreme Court expressed concerns about the proposed bail criteria and directed the High Court to present their policy strategy for expeditiously considering bail applications.
Finding of the Court:
The Court emphasized the need for prompt consideration of bail applications for convicts who have undergone a significant portion of their sentence and directed the High Court to present their policy strategy for expeditiously considering bail applications. The pending bail petitions were transferred to the High Court for urgent consideration.
Issues: Concerns about proposed bail criteria, prompt consideration of bail applications, policy strategy for expeditiously considering bail applications
Ratio Decidendi: The Court highlighted the need for prompt consideration of bail applications for convicts who have undergone a significant portion of their sentence and directed the High Court to present their policy strategy for expeditiously considering bail applications.
Final Decision: The Court directed the High Court to present their policy strategy for expeditiously considering bail applications and transferred pending bail petitions to the High Court for urgent consideration.
Judgement Key Points
The provided legal document pertains to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the importance of prompt consideration of bail applications for convicts who have served a significant portion of their sentences. The Court expressed concerns regarding proposed bail criteria and directed the High Court to formulate a policy strategy to expedite bail proceedings, especially for those who have undergone at least eight years of actual imprisonment, with certain exceptions such as heinous crimes or prohibited categories (!) [1000754330002].
The Court acknowledged the necessity for a mechanism to ensure that bail applications are listed and decided swiftly, particularly when the convict has already served a substantial part of their sentence. It also highlighted that cases involving heinous crimes or fall within prohibited categories should be considered with caution, and bail should generally be denied in such circumstances (!) [1000754330002].
Furthermore, the Court directed that all pending bail petitions be transferred to the High Court for urgent consideration and that the High Court must present its policy strategy within a stipulated timeframe. The Court also contemplated the possibility of establishing a separate suo moto proceeding to oversee the implementation of these directions (!) [1000754330007][1000754330011].
In essence, the Court's decision underscores the importance of balancing the rights of convicts to seek bail with the need to maintain public order, and it emphasizes the role of the High Court in ensuring that bail applications are considered promptly and efficiently, particularly for those who have already undergone a significant portion of their sentences.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Pardeep Gupta, Parinav Gupta, Krishna Kumar, Mansi Gupta, Nandani Gupta, Mamta Sharma, Vipin Gupta, Viraj R. Datar, Nagendra Singh, Ashish Pandey, Amardeep Gaur, Umakant Mishra, Ronak Karanpuria, Indresh Upadhyay, Brijesh Upadhyay, Akhilesh Yadav, Mohammad Arif, Pankhuri, Dhruv Chawla, Tushar Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Shashank Shekhar Singh, Garima Prashad, Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Srinivas Vishven, Marbiang N. Khongwir, Parth Yadav, Deepika Kalia, Dhawal Uniyal, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Ajay Vikram Singh, Shantanu Singh, Priyanka Singh, Rohit Pandey, Neelambar Jha, Chandra Shekhar, Manish Shanker Srivastava, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Pallavi Baghel, Kalpana, Sweta Rani, Anant Agarwal, Yashvardhan, Apoorv Shukla, Smita Kant, Ishita Farsaiya, Prabhleen Kaur, Kritika Nagpal, Bhavya Bhatia, Advocates
For the Petitioner(s):Pardeep Gupta, Parinav Gupta, Krishna Kumar, Mansi Gupta, Nandani Gupta, Mamta Sharma, Vipin Gupta, Viraj R. Datar, Nagendra Singh, Ashish Pandey, Amardeep Gaur, Umakant Mishra, Ronak Karanpuria, Indresh Upadhyay, Brijesh Upadhyay, Akhilesh Yadav, Mohammad Arif, Pankhuri, Dhruv Chawla, Tushar Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Shashank Shekhar Singh, Garima Prashad, Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Srinivas Vishven, Marbiang N. Khongwir, Parth Yadav, Deepika Kalia, Dhawal Uniyal, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Ajay Vikram Singh, Shantanu Singh, Priyanka Singh, Rohit Pandey, Neelambar Jha, Chandra Shekhar, Manish Shanker Srivastava, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Pallavi Baghel, Kalpana, Sweta Rani, Anant Agarwal, Yashvardhan, Apoorv Shukla, Smita Kant, Ishita Farsaiya, Prabhleen Kaur, Kritika Nagpal, Bhavya Bhatia, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Proposal of specific criteria and exceptions for bail — exclusion of hardened criminals and repeat offenders from bail eligibility. (Para 1 , 3 )
3. Bail should generally be granted to convicts who have served eight years while appeals are pending, provided they do not seek unnecessary adjournments. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 )
4. Convicts serving eight years of actual sentence with pending appeals are generally eligible for bail; for other cases, 50 per cent of actual sentence is the basis. (Para 2 , 7 )
5. High Court directed to submit policy strategy — pending bail petitions transferred to High Court — Suo Moto proceeding registered for further examination. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
6. What is the general rule for granting bail to convicts whose appeals are pending in the High Court?
Generally, bail should be the rule for convicts who have undergone eight years of actual sentence, provided they are not seeking adjournments to delay the hearing of the appeal. (Para 2 , 4 )
7. What is the basis for considering bail for convicts in cases other than those involving life sentences?
For convicts in custody in cases other than life sentence cases, the broad parameter of having undergone 50 per cent of the actual sentence can be the basis for granting bail. (Para 7 )
8. Where should convicts first apply for bail to avoid burdening the higher court?
Convicts must first approach the High Court for bail, provided there is a mechanism to ensure that such applications are listed promptly for consideration. (Para 5 )
ORDER
1. An affidavit has been filed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad that it is in agreement with the suggestions/ proposals listed as criteria for bail by the Government.
2. If we peruse the said suggestions, in our view, it will make the exercise of grant of bail even more cumbersome. The fact of the matter is that if an appeal is pending at the High Court stage and the convict has already undergone eight years of actual sentence, exceptions apart, in most cases bail would be the rule. Despite this the cases are not coming up for consideration. We are not clear as to how much time does it take for a bail application to be listed in such a case. There may be convicts who may not be able to have the requisite access to legal advice for moving the bail application. The High Court must explore whether in all cases where convicts have undergone a sentence of actual eight years, the convicts can be considered for grant of bail.
3. In these suggestions, there are some exceptions sought to be carved out which have been extracted as under:-
“1. Heinous nature of Crime:
(a) Prohibited categories: To ensure public peace and the well-being of the society, life convicts who are hardened criminals, repeat offenders, kidnappers, in crimes related to massacre (three or more than three murders), habitual criminals, and fall in prohibited categories as per the U.P. Jail Standing Policy – no bail should be granted.”
4. We are also conscious of a scenario where an appeal comes up for hearing and the appellant may be seeking adjournment rather than arguing the appeal. That case certainly would not be one for grant of bail as the Court is willing to bestow consideration on the merits of the appeal.
5. We are also in agreement that the convict must approach the High Court first as otherwise this Court is being unnecessary burdened but then there must be a mechanism to see that if he approaches the High Court, those bail applications are listed promptly.
6. In the conspectus of our broad observations, it is incumbent on the High Court to place before us as to how they propose to see that the cases mentioned aforesaid are taken up for consideration for grant of bail.
7. We may note that there may be even convicts in custody in cases other than life sentence cases and in those cases again the broad parameter of 50 per cent of the actual sentence undergone can be the basis for grant of bail.
8. We grant four weeks’ time to the High Court to place before us their policy strategy in this behalf.
9. We would not like to derail the consideration of all these matters pending before us and thus consider it appropriate that all these matters are placed before the Bench of the High Court promptly so that their bail applications are considered.
10. In order to facilitate further examination of this problem, a separate Suo Moto petition can be registered and placed before the Court for further directions.
11. The Registry to register the Suo Moto proceeding and place it before Court on 16th November, 2021.
12. The petitions listed before us for bail be transferred to the High Court of Allahabad to be taken up urgently.
