The Supreme Court has overturned an order of the Patna High Court which had suspended the sentence and granted bail to a convict sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, holding that the High Court committed a grave and manifest error by extending such relief despite the seriousness of the offence and the specific role attributed to the accused.

Allowing the complainant’s appeal, a Bench comprising Justices Manmohan and N.V. Anjaria observed that, considering factors such as the nature of the allegations, the sequence of events constituting the crime, and the role played by the accused, the High Court ought not to have suspended the sentence or released Respondent No.2 on bail.

“…having regard to the relevant considerations such as nature of accusation, events in the crime and even the attribution of role of the appellant, it has to be held that the High Court should not have suspended the sentence and released respondent No.2. A clear error was committed by the High Court. The participation and role played by respondent No.2 in the entire commission of the offence was grave and could not have been ignored for the purpose of suspending the sentence imposed upon conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC,” the Bench held.

The Court reiterated that suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly after conviction for offences punishable with life imprisonment, calls for strict and cautious scrutiny. It emphasised that such power cannot be exercised in a routine or mechanical manner, nor merely because an appeal against conviction is pending.

Reaffirming settled law, the Court observed that while considering suspension of sentence, courts must evaluate relevant factors including the nature of the accusations, the manner in which the crime was allegedly committed, and the gravity and seriousness of the offence. In this context, reliance was placed on Vijay Kumar v. Narender & Ors., (2002) 9 SCC 366.

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that it was not a fit case for invocation of Section 389 CrPC, especially where the convict had been awarded life imprisonment and was attributed an active and direct role in the commission of the offence.

“It has to be held that the High Court should not have suspended the sentence and released respondent No.2. A clear error was committed by the High Court. The role and participation of respondent No.2 (the convict) in the commission of the offence was grave and could not have been discounted to justify suspension of the sentence imposed under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC,” the Court reiterated.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the Supreme Court directed Respondent No.2 to surrender forthwith.

Cause Title: Rajesh Upadhayay v. State of Bihar & Anr.