1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL  NO.  117 OF 2018

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 9585 OF 2016] SUNITA DEVI                                   APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.                         RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The defacto complainant is before us, aggrieved by an order dated 12.07.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in I.A. No. 1630 of 2015 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 672 of 2013, suspending the sentence awarded to Respondent No. 2, in a case where he  had  been  convicted  by  the  trial  court  under Section 302 IPC. 3. Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, learned counsel appearing for the State, has invited our attention to the mandatory requirement  of  Section  389  Cr.P.C.   He  has  also invited our attention to the Judgment of this Court in  Atul Tripathi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported  in  (2014)  9  SCC  177,  where  the  legal position has been summed up at paragraph 15, which reads as follows :-

2

“15. To sum up the legal position : 15.1.  The appellate court, if inclined to  consider  the  release  of  a  convict sentenced  to  punishment  for  death  or imprisonment for life or for a period of ten years or more, shall first give an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to show  cause  in  writing  against  such release. 15.2. On such opportunity being given, the  State  is  required  to  file  its objections, if any, in writing. 15.3  In case the Public Prosecutor does not file the objections in writing, the appellate court shall, in its order, specify that no objection had been filed despite the opportunity granted by the court. 15.4.   The  court  shall  judiciously consider  all  the  relevant  factors whether specified in the objections or not, like gravity of offence, nature of the crime, age, criminal antecedents of the convict, impact on public confidence in court, etc. before passing an order for release.”  

4. Admittedly, such procedure has not been followed in this case.  Therefore, the order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court for passing orders afresh in accordance with law.  We also make it clear that since we have not referred to the other contentions raised by the appellant herein, it will

3

be  open  to  the  parties  to  raise  all  available contentions and the High Court shall advert to the same and pass a reasoned order.

5. We  find  that  the  second  respondent  herein  has been  released  on  bail  pursuant  to  an  order  dated 12.07.2016, which order we have set aside.  Having regard to the submissions made before us, we are of the view that the second respondent be treated on an interim bail for a further period of three months, within which time, we request the High Court, in any case,  to  dispose  of  the  application  filed  by  the second respondent for suspension of sentence afresh as per this Judgment.

6. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ AMITAVA ROY ]  

New Delhi; January 18, 2018.

4

ITEM NO.8               COURT NO.5               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 for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9585 of 2016.   SUNITA DEVI                                        Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.                             Respondent(s) Date : 18-01-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s)  Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv.                       Mr. Prem Prakash, AOR                     For Respondent(s)  Mr. Nagendra Rai, Sr. Adv.  

Mr. Shashank Sorav, Adv.   Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.   Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR  Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Adv.   Ms. Fauzia Shakeel, Adv.   Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv.   Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan, Adv.  

   UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

Leave granted.  The  appeal  is  disposed  of  in  terms  of  the  signed

non-reportable Judgment.   Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                              (RENU DIWAN)    COURT MASTER                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)