Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted to Convicted Respondents in Murder Case Due to Lack of Justification. High Court's Order Fails to Meet Requirements of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal against the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to respondents convicted of murder. The FIR was lodged on 29.5.2005, detailing a brutal attack on the appellant's brother, Javed, by the respondents using deadly weapons, resulting in his death. The incident occurred in broad daylight and was witnessed by many. Following the trial, the respondents were found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. They subsequently appealed to the High Court, which granted bail without sufficient reasoning, prompting the appellant to challenge this decision. The appellant's counsel argued that the High Court ignored critical factors, including the nature of the crime and the respondents' criminal history. The Supreme Court noted the High Court's failure to record reasons for granting bail, which is mandated under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court highlighted that the seriousness of the offence necessitates careful consideration before granting bail, especially after conviction. The Supreme Court referred to precedents indicating that bail in murder cases should be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, directing the respondents to surrender to custody immediately and allowing the appeal.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Suspension of Sentence - Requirement of Recording Reasons - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 389 - The High Court failed to provide adequate reasons for granting bail to the respondents convicted of murder, which is a serious offence. The court emphasized that the requirement for recording reasons is essential to ensure careful consideration of relevant aspects before granting bail. Held that the High Court's order was indefensible (Paras 6-12).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the respondents during the pendency of their appeal against conviction for murder.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order granting bail to the respondents, directing them to surrender to custody forthwith and allowing the appeal.

Law Points

  • Suspension of sentence
  • bail
  • recording of reasons
  • serious offences
  • exceptional cases
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2009 LawText (SC) (02) 130

Criminal Appeal No. of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8190 of 2008)

2009-02-05

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Asok Kumar Ganguly

Masood Ali Khan

State of U.P. & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the grant of bail by the High Court to convicted respondents.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the High Court's bail order.

Filing Reason

The High Court granted bail without sufficient reasoning despite the serious nature of the offence.

Previous Decisions

Respondents were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court.

Issues

Whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the respondents during the pendency of their appeal against conviction for murder. Whether the High Court's order met the requirements of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant's counsel argued that the High Court's order was indefensible and lacked proper reasoning. The respondents did not appear despite being served notice.

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement for recording reasons in writing under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is essential for granting bail, especially in serious offences like murder, and the High Court's failure to do so rendered its order indefensible.

Judgment Excerpts

The allegations made in the FIR and the nature of injuries mentioned in the post mortem report and the weapons alleged to have been used by the present appellants in the incident are sufficient to grant bail to the appellants as the fatal ante-mortem injuries appear to have been caused by Patal (Dav), which has been assigned on the co-accused Chhotey. 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 grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine.

Procedural History

The appellant challenged the High Court's order granting bail to the respondents during the pendency of their appeal against conviction for murder.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 389
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Conviction Under Prevention of Corruption Act — Upholds High Court's Findings.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses State Health Department's Petition Challenging Declaration of Unfair Labour Practice Against Temporary Employees. The court upheld the Industrial Court's finding that denial of permanency to employees who worked for 8-10 y...