High Courts Must Consider Gravity Of Offence And Accused’s Role Before Suspending Sentence; Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and N.V. Anjaria set aside the Patna High Court’s order suspending the sentence of a murder convict and granting him bail, holding that the relief was wrongly extended without due regard to the gravity of the offence and the accused’s active participation. In an appeal filed by the original complainant, the Court noted that the conviction arose from allegations that the complainant’s father was attacked inside a village temple by a group of assailants, and that the accused in question was present with a firearm and instigated the killing. The Court directed the convict to surrender within ten days and required the police to ensure his custody.
The proceedings arose from an appeal filed by the original complainant challenging orders of the Patna High Court by which the sentence of two convicts was suspended and they were released on bail during the pendency of their criminal appeals. The convicts had been found guilty by the Sessions Court for offences including murder committed inside a village temple, along with allied offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred when the deceased had gone to the temple to perform religious rituals. A group of accused persons allegedly arrived armed with weapons, forcibly entered the temple, surrounded the deceased, and one of them fired at him, causing fatal injuries. The prosecution alleged that the convicts whose sentence was suspended were present at the spot, armed with firearms, and actively participated by instigating the shooting. The deceased later succumbed to the injuries.
The Sessions Court, upon appreciation of oral and medical evidence, convicted the accused persons and imposed life imprisonment along with other sentences. During the pendency of their appeals, the High Court suspended the sentence primarily on the ground that the role attributed to the convicts was one of instigation and also relied on procedural aspects such as delay in forwarding the FIR and non-production of the original inquest report.
Aggrieved by these orders, the complainant approached the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of bail and restoration of the sentence. Supreme Court of India
The Court examined the scope of suspension of sentence after conviction and recorded that “there is no escape from the fact that respondent No.2 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC and is imposed with sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life.” It noted that once a conviction is recorded, the presumption of innocence no longer survives.
On the reasoning adopted by the High Court, the Court stated that “the High Court was in evident error in resting upon the said two counts,” referring to the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate and the non-production of the original inquest report. It was observed that “those aspects do not have any bearing on the credence of the prosecution’s case which was otherwise established on evidence before the Trial Court.”
With respect to the role attributed to the convicts, the Court recorded that “it may be true that respondent No.2 was instigator when the deceased was shot at,” but stated that “it is revealed from the record and the evidence… that respondent No.2 also had with him a country-made pistol.” The Court noted that the evidence showed that the accused persons entered the temple together, that firearms were present with more than one accused, and that they fled together after the incident.
The medical evidence was also referred to, with the Court noting that the injuries described by the doctor “matched with the prosecution’s case that the deceased was fired from the pistol.”
On the legal position, the Court observed that “the Appellate Court should not reappreciate evidence at the stage of Section 389, CrPC and try to pick some lacunae or loopholes here and there in the case of prosecution.” It further stated that “suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine,” particularly in cases involving life imprisonment for murder.
Applying these principles, the Court concluded that “the High Court should not have suspended the sentence and released respondent No.2,” and that “a clear error was committed by the High Court.”
The Court ordered that “the impugned judgment and order of the High Court suspending the sentence of respondent No.2 is hereby set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender within ten days. The police authorities shall ensure that respondent No.2 is sent behind the bars within the above time permitted for surrendering.” It clarified that “observations in this order are limited to the aspect of suspending the sentence… and not to influence the course of merit of the trial.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, AOR Mr. Vinit Pathak, Adv. Ms. Vartika Maurya, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Anshul Narayan, Addl. Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Vineeta Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Harsh, Adv. Mr. Prem Prakash, AOR Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kashif Khan, Adv. Mr. Md. Arshad, Adv. Ms. Eksha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rahul Jha, Adv. Mr. Vijay Pal, Adv. Mr. Shiv Kumar Raghunath Golwalkar, Adv. Mr. Ankur Mehta, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anubhav, AOR Mr. Prem Prakash, AOR Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Anubhav , AOR
Case Title: Rajesh Upadhayay v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1468
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8736–8737 of 2025
Bench: Justice Manmohan, Justice N.V. Anjaria
