Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDIRA BANERJEE, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
Khoob Lal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 474 Of 2021 (@ out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2369 Of 2021)
Decided On : 07-05-2021
Section 389 - Criminal Appeal - The appellant, having completed 17 years of actual sentence, was entitled to the benefit under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order under challenge, and directed the release of the appellant on bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, along with his co-accused, was found guilty of committing an offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC. The appellant had completed 17 years of actual sentence and sought the benefit under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that considering the length of actual sentence suffered by the appellant, he was entitled to the benefit under Section 389 of the Code. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order under challenge, and directed the release of the appellant on bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant, having completed 17 years of actual sentence, was entitled to the benefit under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the appellant's completion of 17 years of actual sentence, which led to the conclusion that he was entitled to the benefit under Section 389 of the Code.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order under challenge, and directed the release of the appellant on bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 23-01-2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in CRLMA No. 141177/2019 preferred by the present appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2461 of 2008.
3. The appellant alongwith his co-accused was found guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-05, Lakheempur Khiri, U.P and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
4. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.2461 of 2008 which is still pending consideration before the High Court.
5. It is a matter of record that the appellant has completed 17 years of actual sentence.
6. His application preferred under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for short) in said Criminal Appeal No.2461 of 2008 having been rejected, the instant appeal has been preferred.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Considering the length of actual sentence suffered by the appellant, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the benefit under Section 389 of the Code.
9. We therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order under challenge and direct that the appellant be produced before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate within three days and the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall release the appellant on bail subject to such conditions as he may deem appropriate to impose.
10. The benefit of bail shall be available to the appellant during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.2461 of 2008.
11. With the aforesaid directions, this appeal is allowed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person who has completed a significant portion of their sentence may be entitled to the benefit of bail under Section 389 of the Code of Cri....
Points Of Law : Appellant has already undergone more than 11 years in jail so far and the fact that his conduct in jail has been satisfactory.
The Court's decision was influenced by the appellant's lengthy incarceration, satisfactory conduct in jail, and absence of other pending criminal cases, leading to the grant of bail in the interest o....
The court emphasized the statutory right to appeal and the necessity for timely hearings to prevent justice from becoming illusory, granting bail due to prolonged incarceration.
The court held that the discretion to suspend a sentence post-conviction must be exercised judiciously, considering the nature of the offence and the likelihood of appeal success.
An appellate court may allow an appellant to withdraw a redundant criminal appeal if a prior appeal challenging the same conviction and sentence has already been filed by the same party.
A person convicted for life and whose appeal is pending is entitled to apply for bail after undergoing a minimum of five years imprisonment following conviction, subject to good conduct in jail and c....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
