Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Pinku vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

Supreme Court11 October 2018S. Abdul Nazeer · Kurian Joseph

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

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1277-1278 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOs. 4565-4566 OF 2018]

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 Signature Not Verified

submitted that there are cases involving the Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2018.10.13 13:14:57 IST Reason:

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