SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER on 7 September 2021

[2021] 6 S.C.R. 87

SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA

v.

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

(Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2021)

SEPTEMBER 07, 2021

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUDAND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]

Bail – Murder case – Conviction of accused-privaterespondents a/w life sentence – Appeals – Grant of bail by HighCourt during pendency of the appeals – Challenged by widow ofthe deceased – Held: Impugned judgment/order passed by the HighCourt releasing the accused on bail pending appeal lacks totalclarity on which part of the judgment/order can be said to besubmissions and which part can be said to be the findings/reasonings – It does not even reflect the submissions on behalf ofthe Public Prosecutor – Detailed counter affidavit filed on behalfof the State opposing the bail pending appeal was not even referredto by the High Court – The manner in which High Court disposedof the application u/s.389 CrPC and the application for bailpending appeal cannot be approved – Even on merits also, theorder passed by the High Court is unsustainable – High Courtfailed to note the circumstances under which right from the verybeginning efforts were made to delay/derail the investigation –High Court also did not consider the seriousness of the offenceand the gravity of the accusation against the accused and theirantecedents and conduct by giving threats to the witnesses duringtrial and even thereafter – Accused-private respondents tosurrender forthwith to serve out the sentence imposed by trial Court– High Court to decide the pending appeals on merits – Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 – s.389 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/149, 201 r/w s.120B.

Judgments/Orders – Importance and purpose of a judgment– It is not adequate that a decision is accurate, it must also bereasonable, logical and easily comprehensible – What the courtsays, and how it says it, is equally important as what the courtdecides – It is desirable that the judgment should have a clarity,

87

A

B

CDEF

G

H

[2021] 6 S.C.R.

Aboth on facts and law and on submissions, findings, reasoning andthe ultimate relief granted.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court releasing the accused on bail pending appealBlacks total clarity on which part of the judgment and order canbe said to be submissions and which part can be said to be thefindings/reasonings. It does not even reflect the submissions onbehalf of the Public Prosecutor opposing the bail pending appeal.A detailed counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the StateCopposing the bail pending appeal which has not been evenreferred to by the High Court. The manner in which the HighCourt has disposed of the application under Section 389 Cr.P.C.and has disposed of the application for bail pending appeal cannotbe approved. [Para 9.1][97-E-F]

D2. Importance of judgment; purpose of judgment and whatshould be contained in the judgment.

2.1. “Judgment” means a judicial opinion which tells thestory of the case; what the case is about; how the court isresolving the case and why. “Judgment” is defined as anyEdecision given by a court on a question or questions or issuebetween the parties to a proceeding properly before court. It isalso defined as the decision or the sentence of a court in a legalproceeding along with the reasoning of a judge which leads himto his decision. The term “judgment” is loosely used as judicialopinion or decision. There are four purposes for any judgmentFthat is written: i) to spell out judges own thoughts; ii) to explainthe decision to the parties; iii) to communicate the reasons forthe decision to the public; and iv) to provide reasons for anappeal court to consider. [Para 9.2][97-G-H; 98-A-C]

2.2. It is not adequate that a decision is accurate, it mustGalso be reasonable, logical and easily comprehensible. Thejudicial opinion is to be written in such a way that it elucidatesin a convincing manner and proves the fact that the verdict isrighteous and judicious. What the court says, and how it says it,is equally important as what the court decides. Every judgmentcontains four basic elements and they are (i) statement ofH

material (relevant) facts, (ii) legal issues or questions, (iii)deliberation to reach at decision and (iv) the ratio or conclusivedecision. A judgment should be coherent, systematic andlogically organised. It should enable the reader to trace the factto a logical conclusion on the basis of legal principles. Ajudgment has to formulate findings of fact, it has to decide whatthe relevant principles of law are, and it has to apply those legalprinciples to the facts. The important elements of a judgmentare: i) Caption ii) Case number and citation iii) Facts iv) Issuesv) Summary of arguments by both the parties vi) Application oflaw vii) Final conclusive verdict. [Para 9.3][98-D-H; 99-A]

2.3. The judgment replicates the individuality of the judgeand therefore it is indispensable that it should be written withcare and caution. The reasoning in the judgment should beintelligible and logical. Clarity and precision should be the goal.All conclusions should be supported by reasons duly recorded.The findings and directions should be precise and specific.Writing judgments is an art, though it involves skilful applicationof law and logic. The judges may be overburdened with thepending cases and the arrears, but at the same time, quality cannever be sacrificed for quantity. Unless judgment is not in aprecise manner, it would not have a sweeping impact. There aresome judgments that eventually get overruled because of lackof clarity. Therefore, whenever a judgment is written, it shouldhave clarity on facts; on submissions made on behalf of the rivalparties; discussion on law points and thereafter reasoning andthereafter the ultimate conclusion and the findings and thereafterthe operative portion of the order. There must be a clarity onthe final relief granted. A party to the litigation must know whatactually he has got by way of final relief. The aforesaid aspectsare to be borne in mind while writing the judgment, which wouldreduce the burden of the appellate court too. Many judgmentswhich lack clarity on facts, reasoning and the findings and manya times it is very difficult to appreciate what the learned judgewants to convey through the judgment and because of that,matters are required to be remanded for fresh consideration.Therefore, it is desirable that the judgment should have a clarity,both on facts and law and on submissions, findings, reasoningsand the ultimate relief granted. [Para 9.4][99-B-F]

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A3.1. Even on merits also, the impugned order passed bythe High Court releasing the accused on bail pending appeal isunsustainable. The High Court has not at all appreciated andconsidered the fact that the trial Court on appreciation ofevidence has convicted the accused for the offences underSections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC. Once the accused haveBbeen convicted by the trial Court, there shall not be anypresumption of innocence thereafter. Therefore, the High Courtshall be very slow in granting bail to the accused pending appealwho are convicted for the serious offences punishable underSections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC. [Para 11][100-A-B]C

3.2. The High Court has also failed to note thecircumstances under which right from the very beginning theefforts were made to delay/derail the investigation. The HighCourt has not appreciated the conduct on the part of the accusedpending investigation and even during trial. The trial Court hasDspecifically observed while appreciating the evidence of theprosecution witnesses that the accused gave threats repeatedlyto the prosecution witnesses and villagers and threatened themthat if they give evidence against the accused, they would sufferthe dire consequences. The High Court has also not veryEseriously considered the two FIRs filed during trial for theoffences under Sections 504 & 506 IPC against the accused forgiving threats to the complainant side and others. The HighCourt has not considered the seriousness of the offence and thegravity of the accusation against the accused and theirantecedents and conduct by giving threats to the witnessesFduring trial and even thereafter. [Paras 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3][100-C, D-E, G]

3.3. The private respondents are directed to surrenderforthwith to serve out the sentence imposed by the trial Court.The High Court shall decide the pending appeals on their ownGmerits, in accordance with law. [Paras 13, 14][101-E-F]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo.876 of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 08.10.2018 of the HighHCourt of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.1283 of 2018.

With

Criminal Appeal Nos. 878, 877 and 879 of 2021.

V.K. Mishra, Ms. Shagun Rai, Bhuwan Raj, Advs. for theAppellant.

Ms. Srishti Singh, Ms. Poonam Anand, Sandeep Narain, H.N.Vashisht for M/s S. Narain & Co., Udayaditya Banerjee, Ms. ParulShukla, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugnedjudgment(s) and order(s) dated 08.10.2018 and 06.12.2018 passed bythe High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1283/2018, 1405/2018, 1496/2018 and 1398/2018, by which the High Courthas released the private respondents herein - accused on bail, pendingthe aforesaid criminal appeals, the original complainant – widow of thedeceased (victim) has preferred the present appeals.

2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the judgment andorder dated 08.10.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 1283 of 2018 is the orderfirst in line by which the main accused – Swaminath Yadav came tobe released on bail and so far as the other accused are concerned, theyare released on bail on the ground of parity and order passed in CriminalAppeal No. 1283 of 2018 (in the case of Swaminath Yadav). Therefore,Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2021 arising out of the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1283/2018is treated as a lead appeal.

2.1 That all the private respondents herein – accused have beenconvicted by the learned trial Court for the offences under Sections302/149, 201 r/w Section 120B IPC arising out of Case Crime No. 103/96, Police Station Bansdeeh, District Ballia and they are sentenced toundergo life imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Court No.2, Ballia vide judgment(s) and order(s) dated 08.02.2018 and09.02.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 230 of 1999 (State v. VikramaYadav and others).

Facts in nutshell

3. That the dead body of one Kripa Shankar Shukla alias Bajrang A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

AShukla was found lying in the well of one Chandramani Pandey on28.10.1995 at 10:00 a.m; that an application was moved at the policestation Bansdeeh, District Ballia; that the police party prepared theinquest report on 15.11.1995, however, there was no proper investigationcarried out by the police officer of police station Bansdeeh, DistrictBallia; that some villagers sent the application to his Excellency theBGovernor for impartial investigation of the case; that on 13.12.1995, theappellant herein – Shakuntala Shukla (wife of the deceased) movedan application before his Excellency the President of India with the factsthat she is a widow of Kripa Shankar Shukla (deceased) and herhusband was murdered in the night of 26.10.1995 when he was comingCback from Bansdeeh to his village Adar and thereafter the dead bodywas thrown in the well to create confusion; that on the said applicationof the appellant herein, Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow directed for investigation ofthe matter by CB-CID; that during the investigation, the names of theprivate respondents herein – accused came into light; that CB-CIDDsubmitted the chargesheet against the accused Swaminath Yadav andothers co-accused under Sections 147, 149, 302, 201, 218, 120B IPC;that the learned trial Court framed the charge under Sections 302/149,201, 120B IPC.

3.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that during theEinvestigation by Crime Branch, it was found that one Shri Jainath Yadav,the then Sub-Inspector of Police Station Bansdeeh, District Ballia, underthe orders of Station House Officer, investigated the incident of deathof the deceased Kripa Shankar Shukla and in his investigation reportdated 23.12.1995 in order to save the accused deliberately on the basisFof the false facts noted the fact that the deceased under the influenceof liquor while going to his paramour’s house fell into the well and diedby drowning, whereas in the post mortem report no symptoms of deathby drowning were found. It was also found during the investigationthat even the Doctor Vinod Kumar Rai, District Hospital, Ballia had in Gthe post mortem report of the deceased deliberately mentioned thewrong reason for death (died by drowning), in order to save theaccused.

3.2 The learned trial Court therefore passed an order to prosecutethe then Station House Officer, Sub-Inspector of Police Jainath YadavHand the Doctor Vinod Kumar Rai.

3.3 That during the trial, the prosecution examined 8 mainwitnesses; statement of one Doctor Chandrabhal Tripathy was recordedas Court witness; that number of documentary evidence were alsobrought on record; that in the depositions, the witnesses – villagers whowere examined on behalf of the prosecution specifically stated thatbefore they gave the evidence/statements, they were threatened by theaccused; not only that but an FIR was also lodged against the accusedpersons for giving threats for the offences under Sections 504 & 506IPC; that all the witnesses – villagers who were examined specificallystated with respect to threats administered by the accused and theywere told not to give any evidence against the accused; that during theinvestigation the prosecution also established and proved the motive;that on appreciation of evidence and having specifically found from thepost mortem report that the lungs of the deceased were found congested,however, no water was found in the lungs; that the learned trial Courtspecifically noted that despite the above, SI Jainath Yadav neitherconsidered the above points himself nor sought any opinion in this regardfrom any doctor; that the learned trial Court also noticed that beforepreparing the enquiry report, neither he enquired from the brother, wifeand son of the deceased nor recorded their statements; that thereafteron appreciation of evidence, more particularly the evidence of last seenwith the deceased at about 8 O’clock in the night on 26.10.1995 alongwith the accused persons and thereafter Kripa Shankar Shukla wasnot seen by anybody and ultimately the dead body was found in thewell at about 10:40 a.m. on 28.10.1995. That the learned trial Courtvide its judgment dated 08.02.2018 convicted the private respondentsherein – accused persons, namely, Vikrama Yadav, Swaminath Yadav,Jhingur Bhar, Surendra Kumar Pandey and Umesh Kumar Pandey forthe offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC. That thelearned trial Court also convicted the then Investigating Officer JainathYadav and the Doctor Vinod Kumar Rai who performed the postmortem on the body of the deceased and stated the wrong reason ofdeath for the offences under Sections 201 r/w 120B and 218 IPC.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and orderof conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court imposingthe sentence of life imprisonment, convicted accused – SwaminathYadav has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1283/2018; convicted accused– Surendra Kumar Pandey has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1405/2018; convicted accused Jhingur Bhar has preferred Criminal Appeal A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ANo. 1496/2018; and convicted accused Vikrama Yadav has preferredCriminal Appeal No. 1398 of 2018 before the High Court.

4.1 In the aforesaid Criminal Appeal No. 1283/2018, accusedSwaminath Yadav preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Applicationbeing Bail Application No. 1A/1 of 2018 praying for releasing him onBbail during the pendency of the criminal appeal. That by the impugnedjudgment and order dated 08.10.2018, the High Court has allowed thesaid bail application and has directed to release the accused – SwaminathYadav on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each inthe like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

C4.2 Order dated 08.10.2018 passed by the High Court in CriminalMiscellaneous Bail Application No. 1A/1 of 2018 in Criminal AppealNo. 1283/2018 in the case of accused – Swaminath Yadav has beenfollowed in other three appeals and other three accused, namely,Surendra Kumar Pandey, Jhingur Bhar and Vikrama Yadav are alsoDreleased on bail on parity and on the ground that co-accused SwaminathYadav has been released on bail by a coordinate Bench.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orderspassed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail pendingrespective criminal appeals, the appellant – victim – wife of theEdeceased has preferred the present criminal appeals.

5.1 At this stage it is required to be noted that by the time theHigh Court released the accused on bail, they had undergone 8 monthssentence only.

6. Shri V.K. Mishra, learned Advocate has appeared on behalfFof the appellant, S/Shri Sandeep Narain and Udayaditya Banerjee,learned Advocates have appeared on behalf of the accused in CriminalAppeal Nos. 876 and 877 of 2021 and Ms. Srishti Singh, learnedAdvocate has appeared on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

6.1 Though served, nobody has appeared on behalf of theGremaining accused. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe private respondents – accused in Criminal Appeal Nos. 876 and877 of 2021 have fairly assisted the Court with their submissions whichwill cover all the cases.

6.2 Shri V.K. Mishra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf ofHthe appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has committed a grave errorin releasing the respondents – accused on bail pending their respectiveappeals.

6.3 It is submitted that while releasing the accused on bail, theHigh Court has not at all properly appreciated and considered the factthat by a detailed judgment and order and after appreciation of the entireevidence on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accusedfor the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC andsentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.

6.4 It is submitted that once the accused are convicted for thevery serious offence under Section 302 IPC by the learned trial Court,there shall not be any presumption of innocence thereafter and thereforethe High Court shall be very slow in granting bail to the accused pendingappeals who are convicted for the offences under Sections 302/149,201 r/w 120B IPC.

6.5 It is further submitted that as such no reasons whatsoeverhave been assigned by the High Court while releasing the accused onbail pending appeals. It is submitted that the High Court has failed tonote the circumstances under which right from the very beginning theefforts were made to derail the investigation and even the trial Courtalso convicted the then Investigating Officer and even the doctor whoperformed the post mortem for the offences under Sections 201 r/w120B and 218 IPC.

6.6 It is submitted that the High Court has not at all properlyappreciated and/or noted and/or considered the fact that the prosecutionwitnesses – villagers who deposed against the accused were giventhreats repeatedly by the accused who were on bail and threatenedthem that if they give evidence against the accused, they will have tosuffer dire consequences.

6.7 It is submitted that the High Court has also failed to notethat even two FIRs were filed during the trial for the offences underSections 504 and 506 IPC against the accused for giving threats to thecomplainant side and others.

6.8 It is submitted that in the impugned judgments and orders,the High Court has not at all even referred to the counter affidavit filedon behalf of the State opposing bail pending appeals.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A6.9 It is submitted that therefore the High Court while releasingthe private respondents herein – accused on bail pending criminalappeals against the judgment and order of conviction has not at allconsidered the seriousness of the offence and the gravity of theaccusation against the accused and their antecedents and conduct ofgiving threats to the witnesses during trial and even thereafter.B

A

6.10 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow thepresent appeals and quash and set aside the impugned orders passedby the High Court releasing the accused on bail, pending criminalappeals.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has fullysupported the appellant. It is submitted that the High Court has failedto notice and/or consider the motive, antecedents and conduct of theaccused even during trial and the manner in which all efforts were maderight from the very beginning to scuttle the fair investigation.

C

D7.1 It is submitted that as such no specific reasons have beenassigned by the High Court while releasing the accused on bail pendingappeals. It is submitted that the manner in which the High Court hasdisposed of the bail applications and released the accused on bail pendingappeals is not sustainable at all. It is submitted that from the impugnedorders passed by the High Court, it is difficult to identify the submissionsEon behalf of the accused and even the findings recorded while releasingthe accused on bail. It is submitted that even the submissions on behalfof the State have not been summarised and/or discussed at all.

7.2 It is submitted that criminal history of two cases against theaccused for the offences under Sections 143, 504 & 506 being CR No.F158/1996 and CR No. 23/1999 under Sections 504 & 506 IPC are takenvery lightly by the High Court. It is submitted that the High Court oughtto have appreciated that the aforesaid cases were for giving threatsby the accused to the witnesses and the family members of thedeceased including the appellant herein.

G

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents –accused have vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstancesof the case, no error has been committed by the High Court releasingthe accused on bail, pending appeals.

8.1 It is submitted that admittedly it is a case of circumstantialHevidence and not a single witness had stated that he saw any of the accused murdering Kripa Sankar Shukla or even throwing his dead bodyin the well. It is submitted that even in the post mortem report, thecause of death was shown ‘died by drowning’. It is submitted that thereis no other further medical evidence showing the different cause ofdeath.

8.2 It is further submitted that during the trial the accused wereon bail and even thereafter also by the impugned orders the accusedare on bail and nothing is on record that thereafter they have misusedthe liberty granted by the Court by releasing them on bail. It is submittedthat therefore no case is made out to cancel the bail granted by theHigh Court.

8.3 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss thepresent appeals.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesat length. We have also carefully gone through the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail pendingappeal against the judgment and order of conviction for the offencespunishable under Sections 302/149, 201 and 120B IPC.

9.1 Having gone through the impugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail pending appeal,we are at pains to note that the order granting bail to the accusedpending appeal lacks total clarity on which part of the judgment andorder can be said to be submissions and which part can be said to bethe findings/reasonings. It does not even reflect the submissions onbehalf of the Public Prosecutor opposing the bail pending appeal. Adetailed counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State opposing thebail pending appeal which has not been even referred to by the HighCourt. The manner in which the High Court has disposed of theapplication under Section 389 Cr.P.C. and has disposed of theapplication for bail pending appeal cannot be approved. It is veryunfortunate that by this judgment, we are required to observe theimportance of judgment; purpose of judgment and what should becontained in the judgment.

9.2 First of all, let us consider what is “judgment”. “Judgment”means a judicial opinion which tells the story of the case; what the caseis about; how the court is resolving the case and why. “Judgment” isdefined as any decision given by a court on a question or questions or A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Aissue between the parties to a proceeding properly before court. It isalso defined as the decision or the sentence of a court in a legalproceeding along with the reasoning of a judge which leads him to hisdecision. The term “judgment” is loosely used as judicial opinion ordecision. Roslyn Atkinson, J., Supreme Court of Queensland, in herspeech once stated that there are four purposes for any judgment thatBis written:

i) to spell out judges own thoughts;

ii) to explain your decision to the parties;

iii) to communicate the reasons for the decision to theCpublic; and

iv) to provide reasons for an appeal court to consider 9.3 It is not adequate that a decision is accurate, it must also bereasonable, logical and easily comprehensible. The judicial opinion isDto be written in such a way that it elucidates in a convincing mannerand proves the fact that the verdict is righteous and judicious. Whatthe court says, and how it says it, is equally important as what the courtdecides.

Every judgment contains four basic elements and they are (i)statement of material (relevant) facts, (ii) legal issues or questions, (iii)Edeliberation to reach at decision and (iv) the ratio or conclusive decision.A judgment should be coherent, systematic and logically organised. Itshould enable the reader to trace the fact to a logical conclusion onthe basis of legal principles. It is pertinent to examine the importantelements in a judgment in order to fully understand the art of reading aFjudgment. In the Path of Law, Holmes J. has stressed the insentientfactors that persuade a judge. A judgment has to formulate findings offact, it has to decide what the relevant principles of law are, and it hasto apply those legal principles to the facts. The important elements ofa judgment are:

Gi) Caption

ii) Case number and citation

iii) Facts

iv) Issues

Hv) Summary of arguments by both the parties

vi) Application of law

vii) Final conclusive verdict

9.4 The judgment replicates the individuality of the judge andtherefore it is indispensable that it should be written with care andcaution. The reasoning in the judgment should be intelligible and logical.Clarity and precision should be the goal. All conclusions should besupported by reasons duly recorded. The findings and directions shouldbe precise and specific. Writing judgments is an art, though it involvesskilful application of law and logic. We are conscious of the fact thatthe judges may be overburdened with the pending cases and the arrears,but at the same time, quality can never be sacrificed for quantity. Unlessjudgment is not in a precise manner, it would not have a sweeping impact.There are some judgments that eventually get overruled because of lackof clarity. Therefore, whenever a judgment is written, it should haveclarity on facts; on submissions made on behalf of the rival parties;discussion on law points and thereafter reasoning and thereafter theultimate conclusion and the findings and thereafter the operative portionof the order. There must be a clarity on the final relief granted. Aparty to the litigation must know what actually he has got by way offinal relief. The aforesaid aspects are to be borne in mind while writingthe judgment, which would reduce the burden of the appellate courttoo. We have come across many judgments which lack clarity on facts,reasoning and the findings and many a times it is very difficult toappreciate what the learned judge wants to convey through thejudgment and because of that, matters are required to be remandedfor fresh consideration. Therefore, it is desirable that the judgmentshould have a clarity, both on facts and law and on submissions, findings,reasonings and the ultimate relief granted.

10. If we consider the impugned order passed by the High Court,as observed hereinabove, we find that there is a total lack of clarity onthe submissions, which part of the order is submission, which part ofthe order is the finding and/or reasoning. As observed hereinabove,even the submissions on behalf of the Public Prosecutor have not beennoted and referred to, though a detailed counter affidavit was filed bythe State opposing the bail applications. We do not approve the mannerin which the High Court has disposed of the application for bail pendingappeal.

A

BC

DEF

G

H

A11. Even on merits also, the impugned order passed by the HighCourt releasing the accused on bail pending appeal is unsustainable.The High Court has not at all appreciated and considered the fact thatthe learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence has convicted theaccused for the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC.Once the accused have been convicted by the learned trial Court, thereBshall not be any presumption of innocence thereafter. Therefore, theHigh Court shall be very slow in granting bail to the accused pendingappeal who are convicted for the serious offences punishable underSections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC.

A

A

11.1 Even the High Court has also failed to note theCcircumstances under which right from the very beginning the effortswere made to delay/derail the investigation. It is to be noted that eventhe learned trial Court also convicted the investigating officer and eventhe doctor who performed the post mortem for the offences underSections 201 r/w 120B and 218 IPC.D11.2. The High Court has also not appreciated the conduct onthe part of the accused pending investigation and even during trial. Thetrial Court has specifically observed while appreciating the evidenceof the prosecution witnesses that the accused gave threats repeatedlyto the prosecution witnesses and villagers and threatened them that ifthey give evidence against the accused, they would suffer the direEconsequences. The High Court has also not very seriously consideredthe two FIRs filed during trial for the offences under Sections 504 &506 IPC against the accused for giving threats to the complainant sideand others. The High Court has very casually observed that two casesfor the offences under Sections 504 & 506 IPC are of a simple natureFand that “these two cases will not constitute the criminal history of theaccused”. Giving threats to the complainant side and the otherwitnesses and the offences under Sections 504 & 506 IPC can be saidto be a very serious offence. Therefore, the aforesaid conduct oughtnot to have been taken by the High Court very lightly.

11.3. Even, the High Court has also not considered theGseriousness of the offence and the gravity of the accusation againstthe accused and their antecedents and conduct by giving threats to thewitnesses during trial and even thereafter. The High Court ought tohave noted that when the High Court released the accused on bailpending appeal, they have undergone only 8 months sentence againstHthe life sentence imposed by the learned trial Court.

12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, thereforeeven on merits also, the High Court has committed a grave error inreleasing the accused on bail pending appeals against the judgment andorder of conviction for the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w120B IPC.

13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeals succeed. The impugned judgment(s) and orders(s)dated 08.10.2018 and 06.12.2018 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous BailApplication No. 1A/1 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 1283/2018,Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1A/1 of 2018 in CriminalAppeal No. 1405/2018, Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1A/1 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 1496/2018 and Criminal MiscellaneousBail Application No. 1A/1 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 1398/2018respectively releasing the private respondents herein – accused on bailpending appeal, namely, Swaminath Yadav, Surendra Kumar Pandey,Jhingur Bhar and Vikrama Yadav against the judgment and order ofconviction passed by the learned trial Court convicting them for theoffences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC are hereby quashedand set aside. The private respondents herein – accused, namely,Swaminath Yadav, Surendra Kumar Pandey, Jhingur Bhar and VikramaYadav are hereby directed to surrender forthwith to serve out thesentence imposed by the learned trial Court, failing which the learnedtrial Court is directed to issue warrants of arrest against them and takethem into custody forthwith. A copy of this order be also forwardedto the concerned trial Court for compliance.

14. The present appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Itgoes without saying that the High Court shall decide the pending appealson their own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by anyobservations made in this judgment.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose

Appeals allowed.

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H