Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan on Monday (November 10) set aside the Jharkhand High Court’s orders granting bail to three persons convicted of murder, holding that the High Court had issued vague and unreasoned directions by merely observing that the allegations were general and omnibus in nature. The Bench directed the convicts to surrender within 24 hours and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing on their suspension of sentence pleas. It also expressed disapproval of the Jharkhand government’s absence despite service of notice and noted with concern that the State had failed to contest or appeal against the High Court’s decision to suspend the life sentences.

The case arose from a Sessions Trial before the Sessions Judge, Giridih, Jharkhand, concerning an incident in which the deceased was allegedly attacked by several named and unnamed individuals using lathis, rods, and a pistol, resulting in his death. Three persons were convicted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 325, 342, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000 each.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bombay High Court Order; Holds Appeal Against Rejection of Plaint Maintainable Under Section 13(1A) of Commercial Courts Act

The convicts appealed to the High Court of Jharkhand, seeking suspension of their sentences under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They contended that the accusations were “general and omnibus in nature” and that the eyewitness evidence implicated several persons, both known and unknown. The prosecution opposed the applications, asserting that the convicts had multiple criminal antecedents.

The High Court nevertheless granted bail, reasoning that the allegations lacked specificity. The de-facto complainant subsequently filed appeals before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s orders. The Supreme Court noted that the State of Jharkhand, despite being served with notice, did not appear before it or challenge the suspension of the life sentences.

The Supreme Court observed that the legal principles for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code are well settled. It stated that “Ordinarily, if the sentence is for a fixed term, the court may exercise its discretion leniently in suspending such sentence pending the final disposal of the Criminal Appeal of the convict.”

It further stated that “Even in cases where the sentence is for a fixed term, there is a caveat that if there are exceptional circumstances, then the Court may decline to suspend the sentence.” The Bench explained that “The only consideration that should weigh with the appellate court while considering the plea for suspension of sentence of life imprisonment is that the convict should be in a position to point out something very palpable or a very gross error in the judgment of the Trial Court.”

The Court recorded that the High Court had not applied these settled principles and had merely reproduced submissions made by the parties before allowing bail. It observed that “the High Court has not taken into consideration any of the well-settled principles of law governing suspension of the substantive order of sentence of life imprisonment.”

The Bench stated that “the High Court should have given a fair idea in its order what is the case of the prosecution… and the nature of evidence against each of the accused persons – on the basis of which the trial court held them guilty of the offence of murder with the aid of Section 149 IPC.” It noted that “the case in hand seems to be one of an unlawful assembly whose common object was to commit the alleged crime” and that “even if a particular accused has not participated in the actual assault, he could still be held guilty.”

The Court also expressed concern at the conduct of the State, remarking that “It is very disturbing and unfortunate because we are dealing with a very serious matter wherein the High Court has by a cryptic order suspended the substantive order of life imprisonment.” It further recorded that “It is very surprising that the State has not even bothered to challenge the impugned orders far from appearing before us today.”

Also Read: ‘State Has Moral Obligation’: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Transgender Reservation In Public Employment Within 6 Months

The Court directed that “all the three appeals succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside. We direct all the three convicts surrender before the concerned Jail Authority within 24 hours from now. The High Court shall hear their applications seeking suspension of sentence only after they produce the surrender certificate. If they fail to surrender within 24 hours from today, the trial court shall issue non-bailable warrant for their arrest.”

“The Registry is directed to forward one copy of this order at the earliest to Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court. This is a matter which the Chief Justice should look into immediately.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Yashaswi S.K. Chocksey, Advocate; Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Advocate-on-Record

For the Respondents: Mr. Subhro Sanyal, Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Anki Kashyap, Advocate; Mr. Sagar Roy, Advocate; Ms. Nitu Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Advocate; Mr. Arvind Anand, Advocate; Ms. Jyoti Verma, Advocate; Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate

Case Title: Chhotelal Yadav v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 4804–4806 of 2025
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan