Khilari Vs. State of U.P.
and ANR  INSC 449 (13 March 2008)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P.
Criminal Appeal No 481 of
2008 (Arising out of Slp (Crl.) No.960 of 2007) Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of
the Allahabad High Court allowing the prayer for bail made by respondent no.2
during the pendency of Criminal Appeal no.6724 of 2006. Challenge before the
High Court was to the conviction recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Bagpat, in
Sessions Trial no.299 of 2000. Respondent no.2 was convicted for offences
punishable under Section 302 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and one year
for the offences respectively. He and his two sons were also convicted
allegedly for committing murder of Shiv Kumar.
Challenging the conviction appeal has been filed and simultaneously prayer
for being released on bail during the pendency of the appeal was filed. By the
impugned order the Division Bench accepted the prayer and granted bail to the
respondent no.2. The High Court noted that the allegation was that the incident
took place on 9.3.2000 at about 8.30 p.m. and accused no.2 and his two sons
assaulted Shiv Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') mercilessly
with iron rods and he succumbed to the injuries.
3. The only stand taken was that the ante mortem injuries on the body of the
deceased included three contusions, one abraded contusion and four lacerated
wounds of different dimensions on various parts of the body which could not
have been caused by iron rods. It was their stand that some unknown assailants
caused the injuries to the deceased.
4. The prosecution and the present appellant opposed the prayer for grant of
bail and PWs 1 and 2 and the informant had seen the attacks and were eye
witnesses to the occurrence and PW 3 is an independent witness. Their evidence
has been analysed in great detail by the trial Court who found that credible
and cogent. So far as the possibility of injuries is concerned, that aspect was
also examined by the trial Court.
5. After noticing the rival stands the High Court by the impugned order
granted the bail with the following conclusions: "Looking to all facts and circumstances of the case and particularly
the antemortem injuries and after consideration the submissions made on behalf
of the parties we find it appropriate to release appellant on bail during
pendency of the appeal."
6. Learned counsel for the informant appellant submitted that the approach
of the High Court is clearly erroneous. After the conviction has been recorded
by believing three eye witnesses and also discarding the stand that it was not
possible by iron rods, the High Court should not have by a cryptic order
directed grant of bail. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is
7. Learned counsel for the State supported the stand of the informant.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant no.2 accused submitted that it is
common knowledge that appeals in the High Court take long time for disposal.
The balance has to be struck between the right to speedy trial and the need for
the accused being in custody. The High Court has taken note of relevant factors
and has granted bail.
9. The parameters to be adopted while dealing with the application for bail
by suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal has been examined
by this Court in several cases. In Kishori Lal v. Rupa and Ors. (2004 (7) SCC
638) it was noted as follows:
"4. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of execution of
sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail.
There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. One of the
essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the appellate court
to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the
sentence or order appealed against. 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 grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine.
5. The appellate court is duty-bound to objectively assess the matter and to
record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension of
execution of sentence and grant of bail. In the instant case, the only factor
which seems to have weighed with the High Court for directing suspension of
sentence and grant of bail is the absence of allegation of misuse of liberty
during the earlier period when the accused-respondents were on bail."
10. In Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad and Anr. (2005 (7) SCC 326) it was,
inter-alia, observed as follows:
"7. Even on a cursory perusal the High Court's order shows complete
non-application of mind. Though detailed examination of the evidence and
elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court
while passing orders on bail applications, yet a court dealing with the bail
application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but
exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. The court
dealing with the application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in
a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.
8. There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused was charged
of having committed a serious offence. It is necessary for the courts dealing
with application for bail to consider among other circumstances, the following
factors also before granting bail, they are:
1. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction
and the nature of supporting evidence;
2. Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of
threat to the complainant;
3. Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. Any order dehors of such reasons suffers from non-application of mind as was
noted by this Court, in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. [(2002) 3 SCC 598], Puran etc. v. Rambilas and Anr.
[(2001) 6 SCC 338)] and in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias
Pappu Yadav & Anr. [JT 2004 (3) SC 442]."
11. As the extracted portion and the High Court's order goes to show there
was complete non-application of mind and non- consideration of the relevant
12. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable and is dismissed. The
bail granted to the respondent no.2 is cancelled. The matter is remitted to the
High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
13. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.