LexSURINDER SINGH @ SHINGARA SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B SURINDER SINGH @ SHINGARA SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB SEPTEMBR 6, 2005 [B.P. SINGH AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 197.1-Section 439-Bail-Application for-During pendency of appeal against conviction uls. 302 IPC-On the basis of a judgment of High Court-Bail denied-However, granted to the C co-accused-Appeal to this Court-Granted bail by interim order in view of his having undergone imprisonment for more than 6 years-Held : The direction in the High Court Judgment laid down guidelines to be kept in mind while dealing with bail applications in a pending appeal-It does not lay down hard and fast rule of universal application-In view of the facts of the D case interim order made absolute-Penal Code, I 860-Section 302. E F G Appellant accused, a convict u/s. 302 IPC had applied for regular bail in High Court during pendency of his appeal before the High Court. He claimed release on bail on the basis of Judgment in Dharampal v. State of Haryana, (2000) 1 CLR 74, since he had undergone imprisonment for three years after conviction. His bail applications were dismissed by the High Court whereas the co-accused had been released on bail by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. This Court had granted bail to the appellant by interim order as he had remained in custody for about six years and four months. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. High Court in Dharampal's case laid down guidelines which ought to be kept in mind by Courts dealing with applications for grant of bail in a pending appeal. It does not lay down any hard and fast rule of universal application. Difficulties may arise if such a direction is treated as an invariable rule in the matter of grant of discretionary relief. In a discretionary matter, like grant or refusal of bail, it would be impossible to lay down any invarfable rule or evolve a strait jacket formula. The Court must exercise its discretion having regard to all the relevant facts H and circumstances. The rule laid down in Dharampals case may be 1172 SURINDER SINGH@SHINGARA SINGH v. STATE [B.P. SINGH, J.] 1173 inferentially understood to mean that unless a convict has undergone five A years imprisonment, he should not be released on bail. [1176-G, H, 1177-A; 1178-A] Hussainara Khatoon an_d Ors. v. Home Secretary, State iJf Bihar, [1980] I sec 81; Supreme Court legal Aid Committee representing under-trial B Prisoners v. Union of India and Ors., [1994] 6 SCC 731; Kashmira Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1977] 4 SCC 291; Kadra Pehadiya and Ors. v. State ' of Bihar, [1981] 3 SCC 671; Akhtari Bi v. State of MP., [2001] 4 SCC 355 and Abdul Rehman Antulay and Ors. v. R.S. Nayak and Anr., [1992] I SCC 225, referred to. , Dharmapal v. State of Haryana, (2000) 1 C.L.R. 74, referred to. 2. In the present case the appellant has already been granted bail by interim order and had remained in custody for about six years and four c months. Apart from the facts and circumstances of the case, the co- accused had been released on bail by the High Court. The interim order D is made absolute. [1178-D] CRJMINAL APPELLATE JURJSDICTJON Criminal Appeal No. 1154 of 2005. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2004 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl.Misc. No. 42316 of 2004 in Crl.A. No. n-DB/ 2002. Sudhir Walia and Mahinder Singh Dahiya for the Appellant. D.P. Singh, Arnn K. Sinha and Ms. Avneet Toor for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.P. SINGH, J. : Special leave granted. The appellant herein was found guilty of the offence under Section 302 E F G read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000. He preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against his conviction and sentence which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 29-DB H 1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A of2000. The said appeal was admitted for hearing on November 3, 2001. The appellant's application for grant of regular bail was dismissed by order dated September 8, 2004. One of the co-accused namely, Satwant Singh was granted bail by the High Court by order dated September 17, 2004 since he had suffered imprisonment for three years after his conviction and, therefore, was B covered by the ratio of the judgment in Dharampal v. State of Haryana, (2000) I C.L.R.74. The case of the appellan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.