NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL No.1234 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1480 of 2019)

Vinod Singh Negi ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.     ….Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL  APPEAL No.1235 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1481 of 2019)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.  

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the final

judgment and  order  dated  19.09.2018  passed  by

the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl.A.

1 1

No.4310 of 2014 and Crl.A. No.4213 of 2014

whereby the High Court released the

respondents(accused persons) in both the appeals

on bail by suspending their sentence of life

imprisonment  awarded  by the  Trial  Court in  S.T.

No.465 of 2006 and S.T. No.466 of 2006.  

3. In order to appreciate the short question

involved in these appeals, a few facts need mention

hereinbelow.

4. The appellant in both the appeals is the

complainant whereas Umesh Sharma­respondent

No.  2 in  Criminal  Appeal  @  SLP(Crl.)  No.1480  of

2019, Ashok­respondent No. 2 and Parvinder Singh­

respondent No.3 in Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.)

No.1481 of 2019 are the accused persons.

5. Three accused persons, namely, Umesh

Sharma, Ashok   and Parvinder Singh were

prosecuted under Section 302/34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”)

2 2

for commission of murder of one –Manoj, who was

brother of the appellant­ complainant.

6. By judgment  dated  28.10.2014/30.10.2014,

the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C.

Act,   Ghaziabad convicted all the three accused

persons under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced

them rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of

Rs.50,000/­ each in S.T. No 465 and 466 of 2006.  

7. The three accused  persons felt aggrieved  by

their order of conviction and sentence filed criminal

appeal in the High Court of Allahabad. During

pendency of appeals, all the three accused persons

applied for suspension of their jail sentence.

8. By impugned order, the High Court allowed

the applications made by all the three accused

persons and suspended their respective jail

sentence by directing that all the three accused be

released on bail.

3 3

9. It is  against this  order, the  complainant felt

aggrieved and has filed these two appeals by way of

special leave in this Court. So far as the State (R­1)

is concerned, it has supported the appellant by

filing their counter affidavit along with annexures.

So far accused persons (R­2 in

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)1480/2019  and respondent Nos. 2

& 3 in Crl.A.@SLP(CRl.)1481/2019)   are concerned,

they were served and duly represented except

respondent No.3 in Crl.A.@ SLP(Crl.)No.1481/2019.

The  name of respondent  No.3,  namely, Parvinder

Singh, in  Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)  No.1481/2019 was

deleted from the array of parties by this Court order

dated 08.05.2019.   

10. So, the short question, that arises for

consideration in these appeals, is whether the High

Court  was justified in  directing release  of  all the

4 4

aforementioned  accused  persons  during  pendency

of their appeals.

11. Heard Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned senior

counsel for the  appellant and  Mr.  Shrish  Kumar

Misra, learned counsel for the State of U.P. in both

the appeals,  Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior

counsel for respondent  No.2 in  Crl.A.@ SLP(Crl.)

No.1480/2019, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned

senior  counsel for  respondent  No.2  in  Crl.A.@SLP

(Crl.) No.1481/2019.  

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties at length and on perusal of the record of the

case, we are constrained to allow these appeals and

while setting aside the impugned order, remand the

case to the High Court for deciding the applications

of these respondents(Accused persons) filed for

grant of bail/suspension of jail sentence afresh on

merits. The remand is made for two reasons as set

out below.

5 5

13. In the first place, we find that the High Court

has not assigned any reason for grant of bail. How

the application of bail/suspension of  jail  sentence

should be decided by the Courts and what should

be the approach of the Court while deciding such

application remains no more res integra and is laid

down  by this  Court in series of cases (see  Ajay

Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2005) 7

SCC 507,  Lokesh Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr.,

(2008) 16 SCC 753,  Dataram Singh vs. State of

U.P. & Anr.,  (2018) 3 SCC 22 &  judgment dated

29.07.2019 in Crl.A. No.1150/2019 etc.etc.

Mauji Ram vs. State of U.P. & Anr.).  

14. In our view, the law laid down by this Court in

the aforementioned cases was not  followed by the

High Court while passing the impugned order and,

6 6

therefore, interference in the impugned order is

called for.

15. In the second place, we find that the appellant

(complainant) and the  State  have filed additional

evidence against the accused persons for the first

time in these appeals to show the criminal

background of the accused persons and the list of

criminal cases pending against some accused

persons for commission of several offences.  The list

shows that some cases were registered against the

concerned respondents(accused persons) prior to

the  grant  of  bail  and  some cases  were registered

after the grant of bail.  The High Court did not take

note of these facts.

16. In the light of the aforementioned two grounds,

we are of the considered opinion that the impugned

order deserves to be set aside and the case is

remanded to the High Court enabling it to

reconsider the applications for grant of

7 7

bail/suspension of jail sentence afresh on their

respective merits keeping in view the two grounds

noted above. The appeals thus succeed and are

accordingly allowed.   The impugned order is set

aside.  

17. The case  is  remanded to the  High Court for

deciding the applications filed by the

respondents(accused persons) for grant of

bail/suspension of their jail sentence afresh on

their respective merits keeping in view the law laid

down by this Court in the aforementioned decisions

coupled with the material filed by the State and the

complainant in support of their case. The High

Court after hearing all the parties shall pass

appropriate order on the applications in accordance

with law.

8 8

18. Since the impugned order is set aside, the

accused persons are directed to surrender for being

taken into custody. Their bail bonds stand

cancelled.

                                    .………...................................J.                                    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                        

    …...……..................................J.              [R. SUBHASH REDDY]

New Delhi; August 14, 2019

9 9