GOMTI versus THAKURDAS AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 90 · Decided: 13-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GOMTI 
'• 
v. 
THAKURDAS AND ORS. 
APRIL 13, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT ANDD. K.JAIN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 389--Suspension of execution 
-t-
of sentence and grant of bail -Grant of bail by appellate court on the ground 
c of absence of allegation of misuse of liberty while on bail during trial-
Propriety of-Held: the order directing suspension of execution of sentence 
and grant of bail should not be passed as a routine-Such order should 
record reasons in writing-Misuse of liberty while on bail during trial does 
not per se warrant such order-Order of appellate court was not passed 
kfeping the correct principles. 
D 
Criminal Law-Bail and Suspension of execution of sentence-
Distinction between. 
"( 
Respondent Nos. I to S were convicted u/s 302 r/w s. 149 IPC, u/ss. 
148 and 201 IPC and u/s 3(2) and S of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
E (Prevention of Atrocities) Act They filed appeals before High Court. During 
pendency of the appea~ the respondents were granted bail in exercise of power 
u/s 389 Cr.PC, on the ground that during the period when they were on bail 
during trail, they did not misuse their liberties - Hence the present appeal 
by the complainant opposing grant of bail. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Section 389 Cr.P.C. deals with suspension of execution of 
sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail. There is a 
distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. One of the essential 
G 
ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the appellate Court to 
record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence 
or order appealed. If he is in confinement, the said court can direct that he be 
released on bail or on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons 
-1 
in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the 
releva.nt aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of 
H 
90 
GOMTiv. THAKURDAS[PASAYAT,J.] 
91 
bail should not be passed as a matter of routine. [Para 11) (93-H; 94-A-BJ. 
A 
2. The appellate Court is duty bound to objectively assess the matter 
and to record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension 
of execution of sentence and grant of bail. In the instant case, the only factor 
which seems to have weighed with the High Court for directing suspension 
of sentence and grant of bail is the absence of allegation of misuse of liberty B 
during the earlier period when the accused-respondents were on bail. 
[Para 12) (94-C) 
3. The mere fact that during the trial, they were granted bail and there 
was no allegation of misuse ofliberty, is really not of much significance. The C 
effect of bail granted during trial looses significance when on completion of 
trial, the accused persons have been found guilty. The mere fact that during 
the period when the accused persons were on bail during trial there was no 
misuse of liberties, does not per se warrant suspension of execution of 
sentence and grant of bail. What really was necessary to be considered by 
the High Court is whether reasons existed to suspend the execution of D 
sentence and thereafter grant bail. The High Court does not seem to have 
) 
kept the correct principle in view. [Para 13) [94-D-E) 
-> 
Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and Ors., [2002) 9 SCC 364; Ramji Prasad v. 
Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and Anr., (2002) 9 SCC 366; Kishori Lal v. Rupa and 
Ors., [2004) 7 SCC 638 and Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, E 
[2005) 5 sec 281, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 
2007 . 
.:; 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2002 & 23.01.2003 of the High F 
. .._. 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Cr!. Appeal Neis. 3876 of2002 and 3777 
of2002 respectively. 
Dr. Nafis and A. Siddiqui for the Appellant. 
Nalin Tripathi, Anurag Sharma, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Sahdev Singh, G 
Shahid Ali Rao, Musharraf Chawdhry and Javed Mahmud Rao for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. I. Leave granted. 
H 
92 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 5 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the orders passed by a learned Single 
Judge of the Allahabad High Court accepting prayer for bail, which has been 
filed by the respondent Nos. I to 5, during pendency of the appeals (i.e. 
CRLA 3876/2002 and 3777/2002) before the High Court. The present appeal 
is by the complainant alleging that her husband has
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.