S. 389 CrPC | Gravity Of Offence And Role Of Accused Must Guide Suspension Of Sentence : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court's order suspending the sentence and granting a bail to the convict, who was convicted for the offence of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, holding that the High Court committed a clear and serious error in granting relief despite the gravity of the offence and the active role attributed to the accused.

“…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 releases 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 offence has to be viewed as grave and could not have been discounted for its seriousness to suspend his sentence imposed upon conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC.”, observed a bench of Justices Manmohan and NV Anjaria, while allowing the complainant's appeal.

The Court reiterated that suspension of sentence after conviction for an offence punishable with life imprisonment requires careful and cautious consideration, particularly where the allegations disclose a direct and active role in the crime. The power cannot be exercised mechanically or merely on the ground that the appeal is pending.

“the court should consider relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which crime is alleged to have been committed and the seriousness of offence.”, the court said, referencing Vijay Kumar v. Narender & Ors., (2002) 9 SCC 366.

Applying the law, the Court found it to be not a fit case to invoke Section 389 to suspend the sentence in a case where the sentence of life imprisonment was inflicted upon the convict.

“It has to be held that the High Court should not have suspended the sentence and release respondent No.2. A clear error was committed by the High Court. The participation and role played by respondent No.2 (convict) in the entire commission of offence has to be viewed as grave and could not have been discounted for its seriousness to suspend his sentence imposed upon conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, directing the Respondent No.2 to surrender.

Cause Title: RAJESH UPADHAYAY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1127

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, AOR Mr. Vinit Pathak, Adv. Ms. Vartika Maurya, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Anshul Narayan, Addl. Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Vineeta Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Harsh, Adv. Mr. Prem Prakash, AOR Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kashif Khan, Adv. Mr. Md. Arshad, Adv. Ms. Eksha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rahul Jha, Adv. Mr. Vijay Pal, Adv. Mr. Shiv Kumar Raghunath Golwalkar, Adv. Mr. Ankur Mehta, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anubhav, AOR Mr. Prem Prakash, AOR Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Anubhav , AOR