It may be seen that there is a marked difference between the
procedure for consideration of bail under Section 439, which is pre
conviction stage and Section 389 Cr.PC, which is post conviction
stage. In case of Section 439, the Code provides that only notice to
the public prosecutor unless impractical be given before granting
bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable
exclusively by the Court of Sessions or where the punishment for
the offence is imprisonment for life; whereas in the case of post
conviction bail under Section 389 Cr.PC, where the conviction in
respect of a serious offence having punishment with death or life
imprisonment or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, it
is mandatory that the appellate court gives an opportunity to the
public prosecutor for showing cause in writing against such release.{Para 14}
15. Service of a copy of the appeal and application for bail on the
public prosecutor by the appellant will not satisfy the requirement of first proviso to Section 389 Cr.PC. The appellate court may even
without hearing the public prosecutor, decline to grant bail.
However, in case the appellate court is inclined to consider the
release of the convict on bail, the public prosecutor shall be granted
an opportunity to show cause in writing as to why the appellant be
not released on bail. Such a stringent provision is introduced only to
ensure that the court is apprised of all the relevant factors so that
the court may consider whether it is an appropriate case for release having regard to the manner in which the crime is committed, gravity of the offence, age, criminal antecedents of the convict, impact on public confidence in the justice delivery system, etc.
Despite such an opportunity being granted to the public prosecutor,
in case no cause is shown in writing, the appellate court shall record
that the State has not filed any objection in writing. This procedure
is intended to ensure transparency, to ensure that there is no
allegation of collusion and to ensure that the court is properly
assisted by the State with true and correct facts with regard to the
relevant considerations for grant of bail in respect of serious
offences, at the post conviction stage.
16. To sum up the legal position,
a.
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.
b.
On such opportunity being given, the State is required to file
its objections, if any, in writing.
c.
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.
d.
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.
17. Admittedly, no such opportunity was granted to the State as
contemplated under the first proviso of Section 389 Cr.PC in these
appeals. Therefore, the impugned orders to the extent of release of
the private respondents on bail are set aside.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1516 OF 2014
Atul Tripathi V State of U.P. and another
Citation;2014 ALLMR(cri) 3326 SC
At the post conviction stage, whether the appellate court,
while considering the release of the convict on bail, should give an
opportunity to the public prosecutor for showing cause in writing
against such release where the conviction is on an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for a term not less
than ten years, is the issue falling for consideration in these
appeals.
3.
All the private respondents have been convicted by the Court
of Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh under Sections 147, 148,
149 read with Sections 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 7 of Criminal
Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and they have been awarded sentence
of imprisonment for life with fine. Altogether seven accused have
been convicted; however bail is granted only to four.
4.
The main contention of the appellant is that the procedure
contemplated under Section 389 proviso has not been complied
with while releasing them on bail and, hence, the order passed by
the High Court is liable to be set aside. For the purpose of ready
reference, we shall extract the impugned order dated 29.08.2012
passed by the High Court, which reads as follows:
“Heard Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant
as also Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA for the State. We have
also heard Sri Viresh Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Sri Rahul Mishra, Advocate appearing on behalf of the
informant.
This appeal shall be heard.
Call for lower court record of Sessions Trials No.435 of 2006,
436 of 2006 and 437 of 2006 from the court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Azamgarh, which must be made
available in a maximum period of four weeks.
As regards the prayer for bail, the submission is that the
present appellant Shyam Narain Pandey along with the other
convict Laxmi Narain Pandey were alleged in the FIR as also
in the evidence that they were sitting in a vehicle and were
remonstrating from there, the shots whereupon were fired
by three others.
Regard being had to be submissions, let appellant Shyam
Narain Pandey be released on bail, during pendency of
appeal, on furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Azamgarh in
connection with the Sessions Trial No.435 of 2006, 436 of
2006 and 437 of 2006.
As regard sentence of fine imposed upon the above
noted appellant, realization thereof shall remain stayed.
Order Date: 29.8.2012
Sd/- Dharnidhar Jha, J.
Sd/- Ashok Pal Singh, J.”
5.
Subsequently, in order dated 05.09.2012, it was clarified that
Laxmi Narayan Pandey is also to be covered by the said order. In
the case of Umesh Kumar Pandey and Ramesh Kumar Pandey,
following is the order:
“This appeal shall be heard along with criminal appeal
no.3239 of 2012 in which we also send for the record of
learned trial court.
Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants and Sri Rahul Sharma, learned
counsel appearing for the informant as also learned AGA for
the State.
As regards the prayer for bail, the submission is that
the case of Laxmi Narain Pandey – appellant No.1 was same
and similar to that of co-convict Shyam Narain Pandey. As
regards the remaining two appellants, namely, Umesh
Kumar Pandey and Ramesh Kumar Pandey, the submission
is that except that they had also alighted with other accused
persons from the Bolero vehicle, there were no further
allegation against them.
Regard being had to the submission and evidence,
which is discussed in the impugned judgment, we direct the
release of the appellants namely, Umesh Kumar Pandey and
Ramesh Kumar Pandey on bail, during pendency of appeal,
on furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Azamgarh in
connection with the Sessions Trials No.435 of 2006, 436 of
2006 and 437 of 2006.
As regard sentence of fine imposed upon the above
noted appellant, realization thereof shall remain stayed till
further orders.
Order Date: 05.09.2012”
6.
Section
389 of
the
Code
of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’) reads as follows:
“S.389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal;
release of appellant on bail.—(1) Pending any appeal by
a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to
be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the
sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also,
if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his
own bond.
[Provided that the Appellate Court shall, before releasing on
bail or on his own bond a convicted person who is convicted
of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life
or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, shall
give opportunity to the Public Prosecutor for showing cause
in writing against such release:
Provided further that in cases where a convicted person is
released on bail it shall be open to the Public Prosecutor to
file an application for the cancellation of the bail.]
(2) The power conferred by this section on an Appellate
Court may be exercised also by the High Court in the case of
an appeal by a convicted person to a Court subordinate
thereto.
(3) Where the convicted person satisfies the Court by which
he is convicted that he intends to present an appeal, the
Court shall,—
(i) where such person, being on bail, is sentenced to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or
(ii) where the offence of which such person has been
convicted is a bailable one, and he is on bail,
order that the convicted person be released on bail, unless
there are special reasons for refusing bail, for such period as
will afford sufficient time to present the appeal and obtain
the orders of the Appellate Court under sub-section (1), and
the sentence of imprisonment shall, so long as he is so
released on bail, be deemed to be suspended.
(4) When the appellant is ultimately sentenced to
imprisonment for a term or to imprisonment for life, the time
during which he is so released shall be excluded in computing
the term for which he is so sentenced.”
(Emphasis supplied)
7.
Since the argument is on the faulty procedure adopted by the
High Court on 24.03.2004, this Court directed the respondents to
state on affidavit:
“... as to whether the first proviso to Section 389 Cr.P.C. for
giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor for showing
cause in writing against the proposed released of the
convicted person on bail was complied with before the
impugned bail order was passed by the High Court.”
8.
The State has filed an affidavit on 24.04.2014. Paragraph 5 of
the affidavit reads as follows:
“That in this regard, it is respectfully submitted, that as per
information received, no opportunity for showing cause in
writing was provided to the State counsel though the State
counsel appeared on the said date.”
(Emphasis supplied)
9.
On behalf of the second respondent, an affidavit has been filed
on 12.04.2014 wherein it is stated at paragraphs 2 and 3 as follows:
“2. ... In this context it may be stated that respondent no.
2 to 4 for challenging the judgment and order of conviction
recorded by the trial court gave notice of the appeal to the
State Counsel on 31.08.2012. The notice consisted of the
memo of appeal and the application for bail. There-upon
appeal alongwith bail application were filed. Giving of earlier
notice to the State Counsel was in compliance with the
requirement of law as provided in Section 389 Cr.P.C. to
enable the State to have its say in writing on the prayer for
bail.
3.
That the appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 3404/2012)
alongwith bail application were listed on 05.09.2014. The
counsel representing State as well as of the complainant,
petitioner here-in, entered appearance and objected to the
respondent’s prayer for bail. Upon hearing the counsel of
respondent no. 2 to 4, State and the complainant, Hon’ble
High Court passed the impugned order(s). ...”
(Emphasis supplied)
10.
Learned counsel for the private respondents contends that the
appellants had given copies of the appeal and the bail application to
the public prosecutor and since the public prosecutor having been
heard on the day when the appeal came up for admission, there is
compliance of the first proviso under Section 389 Cr.PC. The public
prosecutor having appeared in the matter and opposed the
application for bail, the statutory requirement of opportunity to
show cause has been satisfied.
11. The provisos to Section 389 were introduced mainly pursuant
to the 154th Report of the Law Commission of India submitted in
1996. The amendments were introduced by Act 25 of 2005 and they
have come into effect from 23.06.2006. The Law Commission
recommended for addition of two provisos. The recommendation
reads as follows:
“47. Two provisos to sub-section (1) of section 389 of
the Code be added to the effect that the Appellate Court
would give notice to the prosecution before releasing a
convicted person on bail, if he was convicted of an offence
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years and also
to enable the prosecution to move an application for
cancellation of such bail granted by the Appellate Court.”
12. However, in the Bill, a further modification was suggested to
the effect that the public prosecutor be given an opportunity to
show cause in writing against the release and, thus, the provisos
have found place under Section 389(1) Cr.PC.
13. Section 389 comes under Chapter XXIX of Cr.PC dealing with
appeals. Section 439 Cr.PC coming under Chapter XXXIII Cr.PC
provides for special powers to High Court or Court of Sessions
regarding bail for an accused. Section 439(1) also has a proviso.
Section 439 reads as follows:
“S.439.
Special powers of High Court or Court of
Session regarding bail.—(1) A High Court or Court of
Session may direct—
(a) that any person accused of an offence and in
custody, be released on bail, and if the offence is
of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of
section 437, may impose any condition which it
considers necessary for the purposes mentioned
in that sub-section;
(b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when
releasing any person on bail be set aside or
modified:
Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall,
before granting bail to a person who is accused of an
offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session
or which, though not so triable, is punishable with
imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail
to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to
give such notice.
(2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any
person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be
arrested and commit him to custody.”
(Emphasis supplied)
14. It may be seen that there is a marked difference between the
procedure for consideration of bail under Section 439, which is pre
conviction stage and Section 389 Cr.PC, which is post conviction
stage. In case of Section 439, the Code provides that only notice to
the public prosecutor unless impractical be given before granting
bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable
exclusively by the Court of Sessions or where the punishment for
the offence is imprisonment for life; whereas in the case of post
conviction bail under Section 389 Cr.PC, where the conviction in
respect of a serious offence having punishment with death or life
imprisonment or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, it
is mandatory that the appellate court gives an opportunity to the
public prosecutor for showing cause in writing against such release.
15. Service of a copy of the appeal and application for bail on the
public prosecutor by the appellant will not satisfy the requirement
of first proviso to Section 389 Cr.PC. The appellate court may even
without hearing the public prosecutor, decline to grant bail.
However, in case the appellate court is inclined to consider the
release of the convict on bail, the public prosecutor shall be granted
an opportunity to show cause in writing as to why the appellant be
not released on bail. Such a stringent provision is introduced only to
ensure that the court is apprised of all the relevant factors so that
the court may consider whether it is an appropriate case for release
having regard to the manner in which the crime is committed,
gravity of the offence, age, criminal antecedents of the convict,
impact on public confidence in the justice delivery system, etc.
Despite such an opportunity being granted to the public prosecutor,
in case no cause is shown in writing, the appellate court shall record
that the State has not filed any objection in writing. This procedure
is intended to ensure transparency, to ensure that there is no
allegation of collusion and to ensure that the court is properly
assisted by the State with true and correct facts with regard to the
relevant considerations for grant of bail in respect of serious
offences, at the post conviction stage.
16. To sum up the legal position,
a.
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.
b.
On such opportunity being given, the State is required to file
its objections, if any, in writing.
c.
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.
d.
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.
17. Admittedly, no such opportunity was granted to the State as
contemplated under the first proviso of Section 389 Cr.PC in these
appeals. Therefore, the impugned orders to the extent of release of
the private respondents on bail are set aside. The High Court shall
consider the matters afresh. Needless to say that Shyam Narayan
Pandey–respondent no.2 in Criminal Appeal No. __________ of 2014
@ S.L.P. (Criminal) No.261 of 2013 and Laxmi Narayan Pandey-
respondent no.2, Umesh Kumar Pandey-respondent no.3 and
Ramesh Kumar Pandey-respondent no.4 in Criminal Appeal Nos.
___________ of 2014 @ S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 262-263 of 2013 shall
surrender before the trial court within three weeks and, if not, they
shall be taken into custody.
Thereafter, the High Court shall
consider afresh their applications for bail, after following the
procedure as per proviso to Section 389 (1) Cr.PC as explained
above, expeditiously.
18. The appeals are allowed as above.
..........................J.
(M.Y. EQBAL)
.........................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
New Delhi;
July 22, 2014.
Print Page
procedure for consideration of bail under Section 439, which is pre
conviction stage and Section 389 Cr.PC, which is post conviction
stage. In case of Section 439, the Code provides that only notice to
the public prosecutor unless impractical be given before granting
bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable
exclusively by the Court of Sessions or where the punishment for
the offence is imprisonment for life; whereas in the case of post
conviction bail under Section 389 Cr.PC, where the conviction in
respect of a serious offence having punishment with death or life
imprisonment or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, it
is mandatory that the appellate court gives an opportunity to the
public prosecutor for showing cause in writing against such release.{Para 14}
15. Service of a copy of the appeal and application for bail on the
public prosecutor by the appellant will not satisfy the requirement of first proviso to Section 389 Cr.PC. The appellate court may even
without hearing the public prosecutor, decline to grant bail.
However, in case the appellate court is inclined to consider the
release of the convict on bail, the public prosecutor shall be granted
an opportunity to show cause in writing as to why the appellant be
not released on bail. Such a stringent provision is introduced only to
ensure that the court is apprised of all the relevant factors so that
the court may consider whether it is an appropriate case for release having regard to the manner in which the crime is committed, gravity of the offence, age, criminal antecedents of the convict, impact on public confidence in the justice delivery system, etc.
Despite such an opportunity being granted to the public prosecutor,
in case no cause is shown in writing, the appellate court shall record
that the State has not filed any objection in writing. This procedure
is intended to ensure transparency, to ensure that there is no
allegation of collusion and to ensure that the court is properly
assisted by the State with true and correct facts with regard to the
relevant considerations for grant of bail in respect of serious
offences, at the post conviction stage.
16. To sum up the legal position,
a.
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.
b.
On such opportunity being given, the State is required to file
its objections, if any, in writing.
c.
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.
d.
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.
17. Admittedly, no such opportunity was granted to the State as
contemplated under the first proviso of Section 389 Cr.PC in these
appeals. Therefore, the impugned orders to the extent of release of
the private respondents on bail are set aside.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1516 OF 2014
Atul Tripathi V State of U.P. and another
Citation;2014 ALLMR(cri) 3326 SC
At the post conviction stage, whether the appellate court,
while considering the release of the convict on bail, should give an
opportunity to the public prosecutor for showing cause in writing
against such release where the conviction is on an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for a term not less
than ten years, is the issue falling for consideration in these
appeals.
3.
All the private respondents have been convicted by the Court
of Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh under Sections 147, 148,
149 read with Sections 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 7 of Criminal
Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and they have been awarded sentence
of imprisonment for life with fine. Altogether seven accused have
been convicted; however bail is granted only to four.
4.
The main contention of the appellant is that the procedure
contemplated under Section 389 proviso has not been complied
with while releasing them on bail and, hence, the order passed by
the High Court is liable to be set aside. For the purpose of ready
reference, we shall extract the impugned order dated 29.08.2012
passed by the High Court, which reads as follows:
“Heard Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant
as also Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA for the State. We have
also heard Sri Viresh Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Sri Rahul Mishra, Advocate appearing on behalf of the
informant.
This appeal shall be heard.
Call for lower court record of Sessions Trials No.435 of 2006,
436 of 2006 and 437 of 2006 from the court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Azamgarh, which must be made
available in a maximum period of four weeks.
As regards the prayer for bail, the submission is that the
present appellant Shyam Narain Pandey along with the other
convict Laxmi Narain Pandey were alleged in the FIR as also
in the evidence that they were sitting in a vehicle and were
remonstrating from there, the shots whereupon were fired
by three others.
Regard being had to be submissions, let appellant Shyam
Narain Pandey be released on bail, during pendency of
appeal, on furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Azamgarh in
connection with the Sessions Trial No.435 of 2006, 436 of
2006 and 437 of 2006.
As regard sentence of fine imposed upon the above
noted appellant, realization thereof shall remain stayed.
Order Date: 29.8.2012
Sd/- Dharnidhar Jha, J.
Sd/- Ashok Pal Singh, J.”
5.
Subsequently, in order dated 05.09.2012, it was clarified that
Laxmi Narayan Pandey is also to be covered by the said order. In
the case of Umesh Kumar Pandey and Ramesh Kumar Pandey,
following is the order:
“This appeal shall be heard along with criminal appeal
no.3239 of 2012 in which we also send for the record of
learned trial court.
Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants and Sri Rahul Sharma, learned
counsel appearing for the informant as also learned AGA for
the State.
As regards the prayer for bail, the submission is that
the case of Laxmi Narain Pandey – appellant No.1 was same
and similar to that of co-convict Shyam Narain Pandey. As
regards the remaining two appellants, namely, Umesh
Kumar Pandey and Ramesh Kumar Pandey, the submission
is that except that they had also alighted with other accused
persons from the Bolero vehicle, there were no further
allegation against them.
Regard being had to the submission and evidence,
which is discussed in the impugned judgment, we direct the
release of the appellants namely, Umesh Kumar Pandey and
Ramesh Kumar Pandey on bail, during pendency of appeal,
on furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Azamgarh in
connection with the Sessions Trials No.435 of 2006, 436 of
2006 and 437 of 2006.
As regard sentence of fine imposed upon the above
noted appellant, realization thereof shall remain stayed till
further orders.
Order Date: 05.09.2012”
6.
Section
389 of
the
Code
of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’) reads as follows:
“S.389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal;
release of appellant on bail.—(1) Pending any appeal by
a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to
be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the
sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also,
if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his
own bond.
[Provided that the Appellate Court shall, before releasing on
bail or on his own bond a convicted person who is convicted
of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life
or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, shall
give opportunity to the Public Prosecutor for showing cause
in writing against such release:
Provided further that in cases where a convicted person is
released on bail it shall be open to the Public Prosecutor to
file an application for the cancellation of the bail.]
(2) The power conferred by this section on an Appellate
Court may be exercised also by the High Court in the case of
an appeal by a convicted person to a Court subordinate
thereto.
(3) Where the convicted person satisfies the Court by which
he is convicted that he intends to present an appeal, the
Court shall,—
(i) where such person, being on bail, is sentenced to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or
(ii) where the offence of which such person has been
convicted is a bailable one, and he is on bail,
order that the convicted person be released on bail, unless
there are special reasons for refusing bail, for such period as
will afford sufficient time to present the appeal and obtain
the orders of the Appellate Court under sub-section (1), and
the sentence of imprisonment shall, so long as he is so
released on bail, be deemed to be suspended.
(4) When the appellant is ultimately sentenced to
imprisonment for a term or to imprisonment for life, the time
during which he is so released shall be excluded in computing
the term for which he is so sentenced.”
(Emphasis supplied)
7.
Since the argument is on the faulty procedure adopted by the
High Court on 24.03.2004, this Court directed the respondents to
state on affidavit:
“... as to whether the first proviso to Section 389 Cr.P.C. for
giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor for showing
cause in writing against the proposed released of the
convicted person on bail was complied with before the
impugned bail order was passed by the High Court.”
8.
The State has filed an affidavit on 24.04.2014. Paragraph 5 of
the affidavit reads as follows:
“That in this regard, it is respectfully submitted, that as per
information received, no opportunity for showing cause in
writing was provided to the State counsel though the State
counsel appeared on the said date.”
(Emphasis supplied)
9.
On behalf of the second respondent, an affidavit has been filed
on 12.04.2014 wherein it is stated at paragraphs 2 and 3 as follows:
“2. ... In this context it may be stated that respondent no.
2 to 4 for challenging the judgment and order of conviction
recorded by the trial court gave notice of the appeal to the
State Counsel on 31.08.2012. The notice consisted of the
memo of appeal and the application for bail. There-upon
appeal alongwith bail application were filed. Giving of earlier
notice to the State Counsel was in compliance with the
requirement of law as provided in Section 389 Cr.P.C. to
enable the State to have its say in writing on the prayer for
bail.
3.
That the appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 3404/2012)
alongwith bail application were listed on 05.09.2014. The
counsel representing State as well as of the complainant,
petitioner here-in, entered appearance and objected to the
respondent’s prayer for bail. Upon hearing the counsel of
respondent no. 2 to 4, State and the complainant, Hon’ble
High Court passed the impugned order(s). ...”
(Emphasis supplied)
10.
Learned counsel for the private respondents contends that the
appellants had given copies of the appeal and the bail application to
the public prosecutor and since the public prosecutor having been
heard on the day when the appeal came up for admission, there is
compliance of the first proviso under Section 389 Cr.PC. The public
prosecutor having appeared in the matter and opposed the
application for bail, the statutory requirement of opportunity to
show cause has been satisfied.
11. The provisos to Section 389 were introduced mainly pursuant
to the 154th Report of the Law Commission of India submitted in
1996. The amendments were introduced by Act 25 of 2005 and they
have come into effect from 23.06.2006. The Law Commission
recommended for addition of two provisos. The recommendation
reads as follows:
“47. Two provisos to sub-section (1) of section 389 of
the Code be added to the effect that the Appellate Court
would give notice to the prosecution before releasing a
convicted person on bail, if he was convicted of an offence
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years and also
to enable the prosecution to move an application for
cancellation of such bail granted by the Appellate Court.”
12. However, in the Bill, a further modification was suggested to
the effect that the public prosecutor be given an opportunity to
show cause in writing against the release and, thus, the provisos
have found place under Section 389(1) Cr.PC.
13. Section 389 comes under Chapter XXIX of Cr.PC dealing with
appeals. Section 439 Cr.PC coming under Chapter XXXIII Cr.PC
provides for special powers to High Court or Court of Sessions
regarding bail for an accused. Section 439(1) also has a proviso.
Section 439 reads as follows:
“S.439.
Special powers of High Court or Court of
Session regarding bail.—(1) A High Court or Court of
Session may direct—
(a) that any person accused of an offence and in
custody, be released on bail, and if the offence is
of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of
section 437, may impose any condition which it
considers necessary for the purposes mentioned
in that sub-section;
(b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when
releasing any person on bail be set aside or
modified:
Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall,
before granting bail to a person who is accused of an
offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session
or which, though not so triable, is punishable with
imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail
to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to
give such notice.
(2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any
person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be
arrested and commit him to custody.”
(Emphasis supplied)
14. It may be seen that there is a marked difference between the
procedure for consideration of bail under Section 439, which is pre
conviction stage and Section 389 Cr.PC, which is post conviction
stage. In case of Section 439, the Code provides that only notice to
the public prosecutor unless impractical be given before granting
bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable
exclusively by the Court of Sessions or where the punishment for
the offence is imprisonment for life; whereas in the case of post
conviction bail under Section 389 Cr.PC, where the conviction in
respect of a serious offence having punishment with death or life
imprisonment or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, it
is mandatory that the appellate court gives an opportunity to the
public prosecutor for showing cause in writing against such release.
15. Service of a copy of the appeal and application for bail on the
public prosecutor by the appellant will not satisfy the requirement
of first proviso to Section 389 Cr.PC. The appellate court may even
without hearing the public prosecutor, decline to grant bail.
However, in case the appellate court is inclined to consider the
release of the convict on bail, the public prosecutor shall be granted
an opportunity to show cause in writing as to why the appellant be
not released on bail. Such a stringent provision is introduced only to
ensure that the court is apprised of all the relevant factors so that
the court may consider whether it is an appropriate case for release
having regard to the manner in which the crime is committed,
gravity of the offence, age, criminal antecedents of the convict,
impact on public confidence in the justice delivery system, etc.
Despite such an opportunity being granted to the public prosecutor,
in case no cause is shown in writing, the appellate court shall record
that the State has not filed any objection in writing. This procedure
is intended to ensure transparency, to ensure that there is no
allegation of collusion and to ensure that the court is properly
assisted by the State with true and correct facts with regard to the
relevant considerations for grant of bail in respect of serious
offences, at the post conviction stage.
16. To sum up the legal position,
a.
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.
b.
On such opportunity being given, the State is required to file
its objections, if any, in writing.
c.
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.
d.
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.
17. Admittedly, no such opportunity was granted to the State as
contemplated under the first proviso of Section 389 Cr.PC in these
appeals. Therefore, the impugned orders to the extent of release of
the private respondents on bail are set aside. The High Court shall
consider the matters afresh. Needless to say that Shyam Narayan
Pandey–respondent no.2 in Criminal Appeal No. __________ of 2014
@ S.L.P. (Criminal) No.261 of 2013 and Laxmi Narayan Pandey-
respondent no.2, Umesh Kumar Pandey-respondent no.3 and
Ramesh Kumar Pandey-respondent no.4 in Criminal Appeal Nos.
___________ of 2014 @ S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 262-263 of 2013 shall
surrender before the trial court within three weeks and, if not, they
shall be taken into custody.
Thereafter, the High Court shall
consider afresh their applications for bail, after following the
procedure as per proviso to Section 389 (1) Cr.PC as explained
above, expeditiously.
18. The appeals are allowed as above.
..........................J.
(M.Y. EQBAL)
.........................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
New Delhi;
July 22, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment