Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Monday (November 10) strongly criticized the Jharkhand High Court for granting bail to three individuals convicted of murder, noting that the High Court had passed a vague and unreasoned order merely stating that the allegations against them were “general and omnibus in nature."

The Court also took serious note of the Jharkhand government's absence from the proceedings, despite being served a notice. Further, the Court recorded surprise that the State did not challenge the suspension of sentence.

Setting aside the High Court's suspension of sentence, the Supreme Court directed the convicts to surrender before the Jail authority within 24 i.e., by today, failing which a non-bailable arrest warrant shall be issued against them. The High Court was directed to re-hear their applications seeking suspension of sentence, after furnishing of the surrender certificate.

The court asked “the Registry to forward one copy of this order at the earliest to Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court. This is a matter which the Chief Justice should look into immediately.”

“What has the High Court done in this case!. All that the High Court has done is to record in brief the submissions canvassed on behalf of the convicts and the State respectively and has observed that the allegations are general and omnibus.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, adding that “the State of Jharkhand although served with the notice issued by this Court yet has chosen not to remain present before this Court... This is something very disturbing and unfortunate because we are dealing with a very serious matter wherein the High Court has by a cryptic order suspended the substantive order of life imprisonment.”

The complainant challenged the High Court's orders that had suspended the life sentences of the convicts pending the disposal of their criminal appeals.

The convicts were found guilty by a sessions court in a murder case. The prosecution alleged that they were part of an unlawful assembly that attacked the informant's brother and another person with lathis, dandas, rods, and a pistol, resulting in the brother's death.

The Supreme Court said that the legal position regarding suspension of sentence by appellate courts under Section 389 of the CrPC (now Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is well established. Generally, when the sentence imposed is for a fixed term, appellate courts tend to exercise their discretion liberally and may suspend the sentence while the convict's appeal is pending.

However, the Court warned, this leniency is not absolute. Even in fixed-term cases, the court may refuse to suspend the sentence if exceptional circumstances exist. What constitutes such exceptional circumstances is not rigidly defined and depends on the facts of each case, as highlighted by the State.

In contrast, when the sentence awarded is life imprisonment, the court must adopt a more cautious approach. In such cases, the sentence should be suspended only when the convict can demonstrate a clear and substantial error in the trial court's judgment,one that strongly indicates the conviction might not stand upon final examination.

"Even in cases where the sentence is for a fixed term, there is a caveat that if there are exceptional circumstances, then the Court may decline to suspend the sentence," the Court added.

It added that “the only consideration that should weigh with the appellate court while considering the plea for suspension of sentence of life imprisonment is that the convict should be in a position to point out something very palpable or a very gross error in the judgment of the Trial Court on the basis of which he is able to make good his case that on this ground alone, his appeal deserves to be allowed and he be acquitted.”

Thus, while appellate courts generally show leniency in suspending fixed-term sentences, the bar is significantly higher in cases involving life imprisonment, where suspension is justified only in the presence of palpable or gross errors in the conviction.

The High Court granted bail primarily on the grounds that the allegations were "general and omnibus in nature." Setting aside the High Court's order, the bench said that “Unfortunately, the High Court has not taken into consideration any of the well-settled principles of law governing suspension of the substance order of sentence of life imprisonment.”

The appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: CHHOTELAL YADAV VERSUS STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1087

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Yashaswi SK Chocksey Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Subhro Sanyal, AOR Ms. Anki Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Sagar Roy, Adv. Ms. Nitu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Adv. Mr. Arvind Anand, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Verma, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.