PREET PAL SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 967 · Decided: 14-08-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
967
PREET PAL SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2020)
AUGUST 14, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s.389 – Grant of bail – Post conviction – Conviction of the
appellant-accused for the offences u/ss. 498A, 304B, 406 IPC and
u/ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to life
imprisonment and sentences of 5 years and 3 years – During
pendency of appeal before High Court, application u/s. 389 seeking
grant of bail during pendency of appeal – Bail granted by High
Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Once there is conviction
upon trial, the Court while considering the application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima
facie merits of the appeal coupled with other factors – There should
be strong and compelling reason for grant of bail and such reason
must be recorded in writing – Prima facie trial Court had proceeded
on the basis of evidence and the appellant-accused was not able to
make out a case of any patent infirmity or illegality in the order of
trial Court – High Court casually suspended the execution of
sentence and granted bail to appellant-accused without recording
any reason, ignoring the evidence relied upon by the trial Court.
ss. 389 and 439 – Grant of bail under – Distinction between
– Discussed.
Penal Code, 1860:
s.304B – Offence under – Object, nature and essential
ingredients for attracting the provision – Discussed.
Words and Phrases:
‘Dowry’ – Meaning of.
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 967
967
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
968
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 389 Cr. P.C. provides that pending any
appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons
to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the
sentence or order appealed against, be suspended and, also, if
he is in confinement, that he be released on bail. Of course, in
view of the mandate of Section 389(3) of the CrPC, the principles
are different in the case of sentence not exceeding three years
and/or in the case of bailable offences. In the present case, none
of the offences, for which respondent No. 2 has been convicted,
are bailable. Moreover Respondent No.2 has, inter alia, been
given life imprisonment for offence under Section 304B of the
IPC and imprisonment for five years for offence under Section 3
of the Dowry Prohibition Act. [Para 26][978-A-C]
2. As the discretion under Section 389(1) is to be exercised
judicially, the Appellate Court is obliged to consider whether any
cogent ground has been disclosed, giving rise to substantial
doubts about the validity of the conviction and whether there is
likelihood of unreasonable delay in disposal of the appeal. [Para
27][978-C-D]
Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 291 :
[1978] 1 SCR 385; Babu Singh and Ors. v. State of
U.P. (1978) 1 SCC 579 : [1978] 2 SCR 777 – relied
on.
3. Even though detailed examination of the merits of the
case may not be required by courts while considering an
application for bail but, at the same time, exercise of jurisdiction
has to be based on well settled principles and in a judicious manner
and not as a matter of course. [Para 32][979-F]
Kalyan Chadra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan and Anr.
(2004) 7 SCC 528; Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. and
Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 525 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 584 –
relied on.
4. There is a difference between grant of bail under Section
439 of the CrPC in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
969
sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC and grant of bail, post
conviction. In the earlier case there may be presumption of
innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of criminal
jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending on the
facts and circumstances of the case, on the principle that bail is
the rule and jail is an exception. However, in case of post
conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there
is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence
does not arise. Nor is the principle of bail being the rule and jail
an exception attracted, once there is conviction upon trial. Rather,
the Court considering an application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail, is to consider the prima facie merits of the
appeal, coupled with other factors. There should be strong
compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an order of
conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong 

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