Hanuman Prasad @ Hanuta Ram vs State Of Rajasthan

Court
Supreme Court

2026 INSC 1180
Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal Nos…….………….of 2026
(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.19778-19780 of 2026)


Hanuman Prasad @ Hanuta Ram

….Appellant

VERSUS

State of Rajasthan & Ors.
…. Respondents


O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. The crime alleged arises from a political rivalry, leading to
the murder of a person standing for election as Sarpanch. The
deceased and A1, a Government Teacher, belonged to rival
factions. A1’s son was elected as Sarpanch earlier who had to
vacate his office when he obtained a government employment.
The deceased, hence, was standing for the resultant bye-
elections which enraged A1. The allegation was that a
conspiracy was hatched and while A1 deliberately kept aloof, at
Signature Not Verified
his instigation, A6 who had been in jail with A7 planned the
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2026.10.30
19:26:32 IST
Reason:
assassination of the candidate, carried out through A11 and A12.
Page 1 of 8

3. The party respondents herein who are also accused other
than A1 were roped in for offence under Section 120B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for hatching conspiracy and
actively assisting A1, the kingpin and the perpetrators of the
crime, A11 and A12. A1 was handed down a conviction under
Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC with a sentence of life
imprisonment, while the other party respondents herein were
convicted under Section 120B with imprisonment of 10 years.
4. The High Court, according to the appellant granted bail
after an erroneous consideration of the evidence, suspending
the sentence of the party respondents herein. The suspension of
sentence was essentially due to the fact that there were many
criminal appeals pending in the High Court and it was
impossible to dispose of the matter, at any time in the near
future. The father of the deceased, the first informant is before
us, contesting the suspension of sentence as granted cursorily
by the High Court.
5. We heard, Mr. Rishi Matoliya, learned AoR appearing for
the appellant. Mr.Rajan Kumar Chourasia, learned Counsel
appearing for the respondent State, Mr.Abhishek Gupta, learned
Page 2 of 8

AoR, appearing for A1, Mr. Vikas Verma, learned AoR appearing
A2, A8 and A10.
6. As we observed, A1 is accused of having masterminded
the crime and though he was not present, he was behind the
conspiracy. A brief reading of the judgment would indicate that
numerous witnesses were examined, a few of whom were
eyewitnesses and a few who had specifically spoken of a motive
regarding the political rivalry, some of whom were eyewitness
too that A1 was not present at the scene of occurrence is fairly
admitted.
7. However, the witnesses speak of rivalry between A1 and
the deceased and A1 making open threats in the office of the
SDM, who was the Returning Officer that the deceased would not
be alive till the election. The father too, as we see from the
judgment of the Trial Court, spoke of his son having informed
him about the threat. The High Court, however found that he had
admitted to such a statement having not been made in the FIS or
in the statement under Section 161, Cr. PC. We do not see such
a finding emanating from the judgment of the Trial Court. In any
event, even if that had not been stated by the father, there was
Page 3 of 8

credible testimony of the other witnesses who had been present
when the threats were levelled, brazenly that the candidate
would be killed. It is also pertinent that A6; who is said to have
arranged the assailants through a dreaded gang-leader-A7, is
still absconding, though A7 is acquitted.
8. Relevant is also the fact that PW40, an Assistant
Commissioner had specifically stated that on the fateful day
when the crime was committed, without any notice or
provocation, A1 was present in the police station with another;
that another also not having been summoned on that particular
date. The Trial Court drew an inference that such appearance
made by A1 was a deliberate attempt to distance himself from
the crime and create an alibi . On a prima facie consideration,
especially considering the threats levelled and the motive
alleged, as also the specific intention coming out from the threats
to ensure that the deceased does not contest the election, we are
of the opinion that the High Court erred in granting bail to A1.
9. Insofar as the other accused are concerned, the
prosecution case is that the number plate of the vehicle used to
flee was changed, rooms were booked and SIM cards were
Page 4 of 8

obtained, all of which were in assistance to the actual
perpetrators, on the command of A1. However, a brief reading of
the judgment, convicting and sentencing the accused indicates
that the specific allegation of the number plate having been
changed by PW8 and PW44 was not established since the said
witnesses turned hostile. Though, PW12, PW13 and PW27 were
proffered to prove that one of the accused had booked rooms for
the perpetrators, there is no identification made by them of the
actual perpetrators. PW66, PW67 and PW68 proffered to prove
the purchase of the SIM cards also turned hostile.
10. In the above circumstances, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the suspension of sentence granted to the other
accused/respondents herein.
11. In the result, the suspension of sentence as granted by the
High Court to A1 stands cancelled. He shall surrender before
the Trial Court within a period of two weeks from today, failing
which, proceedings shall be taken to apprehend him. Insofar as
the other accused/respondents herein are concerned, we cause
no interference to the order suspending their sentence.
12. Oftener than ever, this Court has cautioned the releasing of
Page 5 of 8

accused, especially convicted for heinous offences, after
conviction by one Court on the ground of there being no
possibility of the appeal being heard immediately; which
questions the validity of the judicial process itself. Whatever be
the reason for the pendency of cases, the Courts cannot be
complacent and release criminals convicted for heinous
offences, especially when they have not undergone sentence for
any considerable period, since it puts to peril the life of the civil
society; exposing the fault lines of the system, which we
definitely cannot cover up but should always endeavour to
overcome.
13. In the present case, though it is alleged in the appeal that
not even a single day of incarceration was suffered by A1, we
are informed that he had been imprisoned for four months and
eighteen days and had been on bail throughout.
14. While expressing the above caution, we also have to notice
that there have been cases where, for a decade the trial had
continued and then the appeal had been pending for another
decade when the accused were in custody for long periods.
What we indicate is the circumspection with which grant of bail
Page 6 of 8

has to be made with respect to persons convicted in heinous
crimes. This has to be done on a prima facie examination of the
evidence led, which if found to be compelling, then with due
weightage given to the actual incarceration suffered by the
accused juxtaposed with the reality of the long pendency of
appeals in the concerned court and it cannot be a knee jerk
reaction to the pendency, the burden of which is more on the
citizen than on the Courts. The Courts should be sensitive to the
sentiments of the victims’ family too while being concerned with
the liberty of an individual, especially when the accused stands
convicted by a Court of law, no longer being enabled the
presumption of innocence, like in this case. The father, day-in
and day-out, has to contend with, watching the person convicted
of the murder of his son, walking free while the Judges grapple
with their pendency in Courts.
15. We are of the opinion that in the present case, the
pendency and the possibility of the appeal being taken up in the
near future cannot be a reason to order suspension of sentence,
at least insofar as A1 is concerned, who we find, on a prima facie
consideration, to have been convicted on sufficient evidence.
Page 7 of 8

Here, the FIR was of the year 2017 and the accused were on bail,
except for a brief incarceration during trial. We make it clear
that our observations with respect to A1’s guilt is only prima facie
as is our comments on the evidence against others which will not
regulate the consideration of the appeal.
16. The appeals stand partly allowed.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand rejected.



.......…….……………………. J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)


....……….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)


NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 27, 2026.
Page 8 of 8