KISHORI LAL versus RUPA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 628 · Decided: 23-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
KISHORI LAL 
v. 
RUPA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 389--Convictionfor murder 
by trial Court-During pendency of appeal suspension of execution of 
sentence and grant of bail by High Court-On the ground that accused while 
on bail during trial did not misuse the liberty-Appeal challenging grant of 
bail-Held: Order to suspend execution of sentence and grant of bail was 
erroneous-Such order is not to be passed as a matter of routine-Order was 
passed without considering the relevant factors required to be considered 
while granting bail in case involving offence of murder. 
Respondents~accused were convicb~d by trial Court u/s 302 IPC 
and sentenced for the same. In the appeal before High Court, they fUed 
application u/s 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of execution of sentence. High 
Court granted bail on the ground that. during trfal, they were on bail 
and had not misused the liberties granted to them; Appellant-info.rmant 
filed appeal before this Court challenging the grant of bail. 
Allowing. the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The order directing suspension of sentence and· grant of 
bail is unsustainable. The mere fad that during the perio.d when the 
· F 
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. The effect of bail granted during trial loses significance when 
on completion of trial, the accused persons have been found guilty. What 
G 
. really was necessary to be considered by the High Court was whether 
reasons existed to suspend the execution of sentence and thereafter grant 
bail. The High Court- does not seem to have kept the correct principle 
in view. [631-F; 631-A-B) 
State of Haryana v. Hasmat, JT (2004) 6 SC 6, relied on. 
H 
2. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 Cr;P.C. is the 
628 
KISH ORI LAL v. RUPA [PASA VAT, J.] 
629 
requirement for the appellate Court to record reasons in writing for 
A 
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 in 
writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the 
relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and 
B 
grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine. (630-D-F] 
3. In cases involving conviction under Section 302 IPC, it is only in 
exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted. 
The impugned order of the High Court does mit meet the requirement. In 
considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like 
C 
murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, the Court should consider the 
relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, 
the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the 
gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail 
after they have been convicted for committing the serious offence of 
murder. These aspects have not been considered by the High Court, while 
passing the impugned order. (631-C-E) 
Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and Ors., [2002) 9 SCC 364 and Ramji 
Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and Anr., [2002) 9 SCC 366, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
I 067 of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13 .1.2004 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Cr!. A. No. 148 of 2004. 
Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta for the Appellant. 
Shahid Anwar and Naresh Kumar for the Respondents. 
R. K. Singh and J.K. Bhatia for State. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. : Leave granted. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The informant calls in question legality of grant of bail to accused-
H 
630 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
respondent Nos. I to 3 by the High Court of Allahabad. In the appeal 
preferred by respondents l to 3, an application was filed purportedly under 
Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') 
with the prayer that execution of substantive sentence of imprisonment for 
life and a fine of Rs.10,000 imposed after finding them guilty for offences 
B 
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 
1860 (in short the 'IPC') be suspended. The High Court, by the impugned 
order, granted bail primarily on the ground
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.