Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Janardan Ray vs The State Of Bihar on 9 April, 2025
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1892-1893 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.18326-18327 of 2024)
JANARDAN RAY …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ETC. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arise out of the common
impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2024 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal
(DB) No.168 of 2023 and in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.330 of
2023, whereby the High Court has allowed the applications
of the respondents – accused seeking suspension of
sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offences
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section
27 of the Arms Act.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. It appears that the respondents – Raushan Kumar
Singh and Mohit Kumar were convicted for the offences
under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and
Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo
Signature Not Verifiedrigorous imprisonment for the life and also to pay fine
Digitally signed by
RAVI ARORA
Date: 2025.04.16
17:48:12 IST
Reason: of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively for the said
offences.
1
5. The respondents being aggrieved by the same have
preferred the Appeals before the High Court. They also
filed applications seeking suspension of sentence pending
the appeals which have been granted by the High Court.
6. In our opinion, the decision of this Court in the
case of “Omprakash Sahni Vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and
Anr., (2023) 6 SCC 123” clinches the issue involved in
the present appeals. It has been observed while
considering the scope of Section 389 of Cr.P.C as
under.:-
“30. In Kishori Lal v. Rupa [Kishori Lal v. Rupa,
(2004) 7 SCC 638], this Court has indicated the
factors that require to be considered by the
courts while granting benefit under Section
389CrPC in cases involving serious offences like
murder, etc. Thus, it is useful to refer to the
observations made therein, which are as follows :
(SCC pp. 639-40, paras 4-6)
“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.
2
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.
6. The mere fact that during the trial,
they were granted bail and there was no
allegation of misuse of liberty, is
really not of much significance. The
effect of bail granted during trial
loses significance when on completion of
trial, the accused persons have been
found guilty. The mere fact that during
the period when the accused persons were
on bail during trial there was no misuse
of liberties, does not per se warrant
suspension of execution of sentence and
grant of bail. What really was necessary
to be considered by the High Court is
whether reasons existed to suspend the
execution of sentence and thereafter
grant bail. The High Court does not seem
to have kept the correct principle in
view.”
31. In Vijay Kumar v. Narendra [Vijay Kumar v.
Narendra, (2002) 9 SCC 364] and Ramji Prasad v.
Rattan Kumar Jaiswal [Ramji Prasad v. Rattan
Kumar Jaiswal, (2002) 9 SCC 366], it was held by
this Court that in cases involving conviction
under Section 302 IPC, it is only in exceptional
cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence
can be granted. In Vijay Kumar [Vijay Kumar v.
Narendra, (2002) 9 SCC 364], it was held that in
considering the prayer for bail in a case
involving a serious offence like murder
punishable under Section 302IPC, the court should
consider the relevant factors like the nature of
3
accusation made against the accused, the manner
in which the crime is alleged to have been
committed, the gravity of the offence, and the
desirability of releasing the accused on bail
after they have been convicted for committing the
serious offence of murder.
32. The aforesaid view is reiterated by this
Court in Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of
Maharashtra [Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of
Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 281] and Gomti v.
Thakurdas [Gomti v. Thakurdas, (2007) 11 SCC
160].
33. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of
law, the endeavour on the part of the court,
therefore, should be to see as to whether the
case presented by the prosecution and accepted by
the trial court can be said to be a case in
which, ultimately the convict stands for fair
chances of acquittal. If the answer to the
abovesaid question is to be in the affirmative,
as a necessary corollary, we shall have to say
that, if ultimately the convict appears to be
entitled to have an acquittal at the hands of
this Court, he should not be kept behind the bars
for a pretty long time till the conclusion of the
appeal, which usually takes very long for
decision and disposal. However, while undertaking
the exercise to ascertain whether the convict has
fair chances of acquittal, what is to be looked
into is something palpable. To put it in other
words, something which is very apparent or gross
on the face of the record, on the basis of which,
the court can arrive at a prima facie
satisfaction that the conviction may not be
sustainable. The appellate court should not
reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section
389 CrPC and try to pick up a few lacunae or
loopholes here or there in the case of the
prosecution. Such would not be a correct
approach.”
7. Having regard to the aforestated settled legal
position, we are of the opinion that the High Court has
4
committed gross error in appreciating the evidence
already appreciated by the Trial Court at the time of
considering the applications seeking suspension of
sentence pending the appeal. Since this was a case of
conviction under Section 302 IPC, the initial presumption
available to the accused before conviction, would not be
available to him. The High Court could not have suspended
the sentence, reappreciating the evidence at the stage of
Section 389 and trying to pick up a few lacunae or
loopholes here or there in the case of prosecution. The
consideration of High Court to the submission made on
behalf of the accused that he had not misused the liberty
during the trial or that the appeal was not likely to be
heard in near future, could not be said to be the proper
consideration for suspending the sentence of the accused,
who have been convicted for the serious offence under
Section 302, IPC. It is only in rare and exceptional
circumstances, the benefit of suspension of sentence
should be granted by the appellate court to the accused
convicted for the serious offence under Section 302, IPC.
8. In that view of the matter, the common impugned
order being in the teeth of settled legal position, the
same is untenable at law and deserves to be set aside.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.07.2024 is set
aside.
5
9. The respondents – accused are directed to surrender
themselves before the Trial Court within a period of two
weeks.
10. The appeals stand allowed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
………………….J.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)
………………….J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI;
09TH APRIL, 2025.
6
ITEM NO.44 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).18326-
18327/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-07-2024
in CRADB No.168/2023 and CRADB No.330/2023 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Patna]
JANARDAN RAY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ETC. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 240887/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.
240886/2024 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/
ANNEXURES)
Date : 09-04-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sarvshree, AOR
Ms. Somyashree, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR
Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Minakshi Vij, AOR
Mr. Jagriti Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. In terms of the signed Judgment, the Criminal Appeals
stand allowed.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(RAVI ARORA) (MAMTA RAWAT) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed Judgment is placed on the file)
7