Pinku vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh
- SCC(2020) 15 SCC 551
- Neutral2018 INSC 960
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where appellants have been in custody for a substantial period (13 years since 2005) while their appeals have remained pending before the High Court for over a decade (since 2007), and no dispute exists regarding the length of pre-trial custody, the appellants should be released on bail during the pendency of such appeals, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court, unless they are required to be detained in connection with other cases. The fact that a co-accused from the same FIR has been released on bail by another bench is relevant to the exercise of discretion in granting bail.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
PINKU ETC. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1279 OF 2018
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOs. 5587 OF 2018]
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants are aggrieved since their application(s) for suspension of sentence/for grant of bail has/have been rejected by the High Court.
Their appeals filed in the year 2007 are still pending consideration before the High Court. There is no dispute that the appellants are in custody since 2005.
3. On a specific query, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has submitted that there are cases involving the appellants prior to the incident and the accused are otherwise facing trial in those cases.
2 4. We are also informed that one of the accused arising out of the same FIR has been released on bail by order dated 06.02.2018 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 6482 of 2017.
5. For all the above reasons, we are of the view that the appellants should be released on bail during the pendency of the appeals before the High Court.
Accordingly, these appeals are allowed with a direction that the appellants be released on bail, subject to such strict conditions as may be imposed by the trial court, in case they are not otherwise required to be detained in connection with any other case. Ordered accordingly.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ S. ABDUL NAZEER ]
New Delhi;
OCTOBER 11, 2018.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free