GUDIKANTI NARASIMHULU AND ORS. versus PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 06-12-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 16 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GUDIKANTI NARASIMHULU AND ORS. 
v. 
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF 
ANDHRA PRADESH 
December 6, 1977 
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER, J. (IN CHAMBERS)] 
371 
Bail-Grant of bail-Practice and Procedure 1n the matter of granting of 
1bail to an accused person pending the hearing of an appeal-Guidelines for 
granting bail-Order XLVll Rule 6 rlw Order XX/ Rules 6 and 27 of the 
Supreme Court Rules, 1966. 
the petitioners who were convicted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court for 
~he offences u/ss. 148, 302, 302 J 149 I.P.C., in •n appeal by the state against 
their acquittal, surrendered themselves to curial custody as required under Order 
XXI of the Supreme Court Rules 1966, before preferring the statutory appeal 
u!s 2(c) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) 
Act 28 of 1970 r/w S. 379 Crl. P. C. 1973. They were on bail at the trial 
.and appellate stages and were also on parole after their surrender pursuant to 
the High Court Judgment. 
Allowing their bail petition the Court, 
HELD : 1. The issue of "Bail or Jail "-at the pretrial or post-conviction 
stage-although largely hinging on judicial discretion, is one of liberty, justice, 
1JUbliC safety and burden Of the public treasury, all of which insist that a deve· 
loped jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial J?rocess. 
[372 (jj 
2. Personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful 
eclipse only in terms of "procedure established by law". The last four word~' 
<Jf Art. 21 are the life of that human right. [373 A] 
· 
3. The significance and sweep of Art. 21 make the deprivation of liberty, 
-ephemeral or enduring, a matter of grave cone<:m and permissible only when 
the law authorising it is reasonable, even hande,d and geared to the goals of 
community good and State necessity spelt out in Art. 
19. Reasonableness 
postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom by refusal 
,of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice to the 
individual involved and society affected. [376 D-E] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
4. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defense and individual 
F 
correction along an anti criminal direction. Public justice is central to the 
whole of bail law fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should 
be minimised. 
Restorative devices to redeem the man, even through community 
service, meditating drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, 
and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating 
witnesses or committing offences while on judicially sanctioned "free enterprise" 
should be provided against. No seeker_ of justice shall play cOnfidence tricks 
on the court or community. Conditions may be hung around bail orders not to 
G 
cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic /·urisdiction and humanistic orienta-
tion invoked by the judicial discretion corre ated to the values of our constitu~ 
fon. [376 H. 377 A] 
5. The principal rule to guide release on bail sh0utd be to secure the 
pre~ 
sence of the applicant who seeks to he liberated, to take judgment and serve 
'sentence in the event ·of the court punishing him with imprisonment. 
In this 
perspective, relevance of considerations is regulated by their ncxos with the 
likely absence of the applicant for fear of a severe sentence. 
[375 C·Dl 
&'. The vital considerations are c:-(a) The nature of charge, the nature of 
the evidence and, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convic· 
tcd, or conviction i~ confirmed. When the crime charged is 
of the highest 
ll-1114SCJ/77 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978] 2 S.C.R. 
magnitut.le and the punishment of it assigned by law is of extreme severity, the 
court may reasonably presume, some evidence warranting that no amount of 
bail would secure the presence of the convict at the stage of judgment, should 
he be enlarged; (b) whether the cause of justice would be thwarted by him 
who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the court to be freed for the time 
being ( c) Antecedents· of the man and socio· geographical circumstances; and 
whether the petitoner's record shows him to be a habitual offender; ( d) when 
a person, charged with a grave offence has been acquitted at a stage, the inter~ 
mediate acquittal has pertinence to a bail plea when the appeal before this 
court pends. The ground for denial of provisional release, becomes weaker 
wh

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.