Supreme Court Reaffirms Strict Bail Rules for Convicts in Heinous Crimes | India News
Image Source: Internet
The Supreme Court has clarified the conditions under which life sentences can be suspended, emphasizing that the principle of 'presumption of innocence' only applies until an accused is tried and convicted. In a recent judgment, a bench of justices laid down the governing principles, cautioning appellate courts against re-trying cases at the stage of suspending sentence. The top court held that re-appreciation of evidence or picking holes in the prosecution case is impermissible when a convicted person seeks bail pending appeal. This ruling is significant as it reaffirms that once guilt is established after trial, liberty pending appeal is not the norm, particularly in cases involving violent and serious crimes. The Supreme Court set aside orders of the Patna high court that had suspended the life sentences of a father and son convicted in a temple murder in Bihar's Rohtas district. The bench emphasized that suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is fundamentally different from grant of bail to an undertrial. In cases involving life imprisonment, the court said that suspension of sentence can be granted only in rare and exceptional circumstances, such as when there is a 'gross and apparent error' in the trial court's judgment. Appellate courts must consider factors like the gravity of the offence, the manner of its commission, and the role played by the accused, without re-evaluating evidence as if hearing the appeal itself. The judgment may have implications for the 2017 Unnao rape case, where the Delhi high court granted bail to former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar pending appeal. The Supreme Court is currently hearing the CBI's challenge to the high court's order. In the present case, the Supreme Court directed both convicts to surrender within ten days, holding that the high court had committed a 'clear error' in granting them bail. The bench noted that the high court had relied on 'illogical considerations' which had no bearing on the credibility of the prosecution case already established at trial.
