Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 1468
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._______ OF 2025
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 8736 OF 2025)
RAJESH UPADHAYAY …Appellant(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant-original complainant
has questioned judgment and order dated 28.08.2024
of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature
at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.542 of 2024,
whereby the High Court suspended the sentence
imposed on respondent No.2 and released him on
bail during the pendency of the Appeal.
2.1 Respondent No.2-Sheo Narayan Mahto
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RASHI GUPTA
Date: 2025.12.18
19:01:56 IST
Reason:
came to be convicted under Section 302 read with
Page 1 of 15
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with
imposition of fine of ₹ 20,000/-, by learned Additional
th
District and Sessions Judge, 19 Rohtas in Sessions
Trial No.101 of 2022. The respondent No.2 was further
convicted for the offence under Sections 342/149, IPC
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of
one year and to pay fine of ₹ 500/-. In respect of
conviction under Sections 147 and 504/149, IPC,
sentence of one year for each offence and fine of ₹ 500
and ₹ 1,000/- respectively was imposed.
2.2 Respondent No.2 came to be
convicted also for the offence under Section 148, IPC,
for which he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for a term of two years with fine of ₹ 1,000/-.
Conviction was also recorded by the Sessions Court
under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in respect
thereof respondent No.2 was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years and to
₹
pay a fine of 3,000/-, with default clause.
3. The appellant-informant’s father
named Krishna Behari Upadhyay was murdered. As
per the prosecution story, on 11.12.2021 at about 4.30
p.m., the appellant along with his father Krishna
Behari Upadhyay reached at Mahavir temple of the
village to light ‘ Diya’ and to do ‘ Arti’ . At that time, the
Page 2 of 15
accused persons and the co-villagers Bashishthha
Singh alias Munna Singh, Ajit Singh, Naga Kumar,
Raghunandan Kumar and Sheo Narayan Mahto-
respondent No.2 herein wielding the arms and
weapons reached, at the temple. Hurling abuses, all
of them surrounded the appellant and his father,
telling said Krishna Behari Upadhyay that he was not
performing P uja and was engaging in politics.
3.1 It is the further case of the prosecution
that Pandit Krishna Behari Upadhyay tried to close the
main gate of the temple, but the accused persons
pushed the gate and made a forcible entry inside the
temple. Ajit Singh and Raghunandan Kumar caught
hold of Krishna Behari Upadhyay and Munna Singh is
stated to have fired at him with a revolver. It was
stated respondent No.2 also had a country-made
pistol with him and that he as well as another Rajesh
Mehto alias Rajesh Kumar were instigatively uttering
that the Pandit should be killed as he was excessively
indulging in politics. Because of gun fire shots,
Krishna Behari Upadhyay fell down inside the temple
premises and was in a pool of blood.
3.2 The appellant somehow managed to
flee away from the place and informed his family
members. Om Prakash Tiwari and Ritesh Mukhia who
were the family members, as well as the other
Page 3 of 15
co-villagers reached at the place of the offence. They
saw Munna Singh, Ajit Kumar, Naga Kumar,
Raghunandan Kumar and Rajesh Kumar Mahto alias
Rajesh as also respondent No.2-Sheo Narayan Mahto
running away in the Eastern direction.
3.3 Upon being taken to the hospital,
Krishna Behari Upadhyay was declared dead. A
Fardbeyan was given by the appellant on 11.12.2021,
pursuant to which the police registered the First
Information Report No.96 of 2021 for the offences
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 504, 506, 302
and 120 (B), IPC, and for the offence under Section 27
of the Arms Act against the six persons, including
respondent No.2. On 02.02.2022, respondent No.2
surrendered before the Trial Court. Chargesheet
No.9 of 2022 was filed on 28.03.2022.
3.4 The Sessions Court convicted and
sentenced respondent No.2 for the offences as
mentioned above. In the appeal proceedings before
the High Court, respondent No.2 filed an application
praying for suspension of sentence, which was
allowed by the High Court and during the pendency
of the appeal, respondent No.2 was ordered to be
released on bail, suspending the sentence imposed
on him.
Page 4 of 15
3.5 The High Court took the view that the
role attributed to respondent No.2 in the incident was
of instigation, therefore, the sentence could be
suspended. Accordingly to the High Court, the First
Information Report (FIR) was sent to the Magistrate’s
court after three days and further that the original
copy of the inquest report was not produced, which,
stated the High Court, were also the factors entitling
respondent No.2-the convict to be released on bail
during the pendency of the appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Tiwari for the appellant and Mr. Anshul
Narayan, learned additional standing counsel for the
respondent-State of Bihar.
5. There is no escape from the fact that
respondent No.2 is convicted under Section 302 read
with Section 149, IPC and is imposed with sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for life with payment of fine.
He is also convicted for the offence under the Arms
Act. Respondent No.2 had undergone incarceration
so far for three years. His appeal has been awaiting
final outcome.
5.1. In order to assess the merits and
justification or otherwise of the impugned order of the
High Court whereby the High Court thought it fit to
Page 5 of 15
suspend the sentence imposed on respondent No.2
herein, it would be worthwhile to notice the total
scenario of the events in the commission of the crime
as well as relevant to consider the role and the nature
of participation of respondent No.2.
5.2. The nature of role played by
respondent No.2 was the aspect weighed with the
High Court in suspending the sentence awarded to
him, the High Court was further persuaded itself to
justify the suspension of sentence of respondent No.2
on the ground inter alia that that the FIR was sent to
the Magistrate’s court after a gap of three days and
that the original copy of the inquest report was not
produced.
5.3 At the outset, it may be observed that
the High Court was in evident error in resting upon
the said two counts. Delay of three days in sending
the copy of the FIR to the court of the Magistrate and
the non-production of original copy of the inquest
report could be said to be illogical considerations
applied by the High Court, insofar as those aspects
do not have any bearing on the credence of the
prosecution’s case which was otherwise established
on evidence before the Trial Court. These
considerations could not have guided the application
of mind of the High Court.
Page 6 of 15
5.4 The High Court was swayed away to
observe that the role played by respondent No.2 in
the incident was of instigation only. It may be true that
respondent No.2 was instigator when the deceased
Krishna Behari Upadhyay was shot at, however, it is
revealed from the record and the evidence, which the
High Court has also accepted and observed, that
respondent No.2 also had with him a country-made
pistol.
5.5 As stated above, respondent No.2 had
pistol with him and he along with Rajesh Kumar and
other accused persons had been shouting ‘kill him’
( Pandit Krishna Behari Upadhyay). After the incident,
the accused persons fled away. PW1, who was a Pujari
present at nearby Hanuman temple deposed to state
that he heard sounds of gun shot and upon hearing
the sound, he came out to run towards the place and
at such time, he saw Munna Singh running with
weapon in his hand. Respondent No.2 was also seen
running to flee from the Northern door of the temple.
Thus, in the events turned out inside the temple,
Munna Singh is stated to have fired the gun shots at
the victim, whereas respondent No.2 with country-
made pistol was inside.
Page 7 of 15
5.6 While the ocular evidence on record
was as above, the Medical Officer Dr. Kumar Dev
Pujan (PW6) described the injuries. The nature of
injuries stated by PW6 matched with the
prosecution’s case that the deceased was fired from
the pistol on his temple. The injuries described by the
Doctor were- ‘Lacerated & burn & charring l"Xl/2"
muscle deep on left side of face, wound of entry. On
dissection of skull bone, he found lacerated would on
the left mid skull, parietal region. Elongated brass
metal foreign body was found lodged in brain
substance of parietal region. Brain substance and
meninges lacerated and blood clout in skull cavity.’
The cause of the death of the deceased was
mentioned by PW6 to be haemorrhage and shock
due to the injuries caused as above by use of firearm.
6. Section 389 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 deals with suspension of execution
of sentence pending appeal and release of appellant
on bail. Conceptually, there is a distinction between
bail and suspension of sentence. In State of Haryana
1
v. Hasmat , this Court emphasising that the
Appellate Court is expected to record proper
reasons in writing for ordering suspension of
execution of sentence or the order appealed, further
1
(2004) 6 SCC 175
Page 8 of 15
observed that before suspension of sentence could
be ordered, there has to be careful consideration of
the relevant aspects. It was stated that order directing
suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not
be passed as matter of routine.
6.1 It is also the settled principle that the
Appellate Court should not reappreciate evidence at
stage of Section 389, CrPC and try to pick some
lacunae or loopholes here and there in the case of
prosecution. The presumption of innocence of the
accused which is a principle applied in criminal
jurisprudence, holds good only until the accused is
tried. Once the accused is convicted at the end of the
trial, the presumption of innocence does not
continue.
6.2 In Shakuntala Shukla v. State of Uttar
2
Pradesh & Anr. , this Court was considering the
question of grant of bail during pendency of appeal
at the instance of appellant who was convicted under
Section, 302/149, 201 read with Section 120-B, IPC. It
was observed inter alia that the High Court should be
slow in granting bail to an accused convicted under
Section 302/149, IPC and that once convicted, the
presumption of innocence would vanish.
2
(2021) 20 SCC 818
Page 9 of 15
‘The High Court has not at all appreciated
and considered the fact that the learned trial
court on appreciation of evidence has convicted
the accused for the offences under Sections
302/149, 201 r/w 120-BIPC. Once the accused
have been convicted by the learned trial court,
there shall not be any presumption of innocence
thereafter. Therefore, the High Court shall be
very slow in granting bail to the accused pending
appeal who are convicted for the serious
offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 201
r/w 120-B IPC.’ (Para 11)
6.3 In Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar
3
Chaudhary & Anr. , this Court again reiterated that
the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted
only in exceptional cases more particularly so in
cases involving conviction under Section 302, IPC. It
was further observed that the court should consider
the relevant factors like nature of accusation made
against the convict, the manner of commission of
crime, the gravity of the offence, etc. Distinction was
brought out between grant of relief of suspension of
sentence in the cases where fixed term sentence is
imposed versus the cases where the convicted
person is sentenced to life imprisonment, by relying
3
(2023) 6 SCC 123
Page 10 of 15
on its own decision in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai
4
v. State of Gujarat ,
‘When a convicted person is sentenced to
a fixed period of sentence and when he files an
appeal under any statutory right, suspension of
sentence can be considered by the appellate
court liberally unless there are exceptional
circumstances. Of course, if there is any statutory
restriction against suspension of sentence it is a
different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is
life imprisonment the consideration for
suspension of sentence could be of a different
approach.’ (Para 3)
6.4 Even in respect of cases where the
sentence awarded is for a fixed term, this Court in
5
Chhotelal Yadav v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
observed that ‘there is a caveat that if there are
exceptional circumstances, then the Court may
decline to suspend the sentence even in cases where
fixed term of sentence is imposed’. It was specifically
observed that in respect of plea of suspension of
sentence where the sentence is of life imprisonment,
such relief has to informed by a gross and apparent
error in the judgment of the Trial Court.
4
(1999) 4 SCC 421
5
Criminal Appeal No.4804 of 2025 decided on 10.11.2025
Page 11 of 15
‘What could be those exceptional
circumstances is not something exhaustive. It is for
the Court concerned to look into those exceptional
circumstances as may be pointed out by the State.
However, 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.’
(Para 16)
6.5 The dictum that the benefit of
suspension of sentence, if at all to be granted in the
cases involving conviction under Section 302, IPC, it
has to be only in exception cases, is well settled in the
catena of judgments. In Vijay Kumar v. Narender &
6
Ors. it was observed that in considering the prayer
for bail in a case involving a serious offence like
murder punishable under Section 302, IPC, 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 view was reiterated in
6
(2002) 9 SCC 366
Page 12 of 15
7
Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal & Anr. ,
8
Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Marashtra ,
9
Gomti v. Thakurdas & Ors. .
7. Looking to the crime scenario in the
instant case, the murder of father of complainant-
Pundit Krishna Behari Upadhyay took place inside the
temple. The appellant complainant (PW2) in terms
deposed that respondent No.2 had pistol in his hand.
When all the accused persons came, the father of the
appellant got frightened, went inside the temple.
Thereupon, as is stated, the accused persons,
including respondent No.2, pushed the door of the
temple and made a forced entry inside, catching hold
of Pandit Krishna Behari Upadhyay. The victim fell
down having received gun shot injury to be in a pool
of blood. As per the evidence appreciated by the
Trial court leading to conviction of respondent No.2
under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC, the
firearm was used by Munna Singh whereas
respondent No.2 with pistol in his hand was
instigating. Munna Singh and respondent No.2 had
firearms with them. Respondent No.2 had with him a
country-made pistol.
7
(2005) 5 SCC 281
9
(2007) 11 SCC 160
Page 13 of 15
8. It is also to be noted that two of the
accused persons are absconding.
9. In the light of the above highlighted
principles applied to the facts of the present case and
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.
9.1 It goes without saying that
observations in this order are limited to the aspect of
suspending the sentence of respondent No.2 and
releasing him on bail, not to influence the course of
merit of the trial.
10. For foregoing reasons and discussion,
impugned judgment and order of the High Court
dated 28.08.2024 suspending the sentence of
respondent No.2 is hereby set aside. Respondent
Page 14 of 15
No.2 Sheo Narayan Mahto to is directed to surrender
within ten days. The police authorities shall ensure
that respondent No.2 is sent behind the bars within
the above time permitted for surrendering.
11. The present appeal is accordingly
allowed.
In view of disposal of the Appeal, the
interlocutory applications, if any, shall not survive.
………………………………..,J.
[MANMOHAN]
………………………………….., J.
[ N.V. ANJARIA ]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 18, 2025.
(VK)
Page 15 of 15
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._______ OF 2025
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 8737 OF 2025)
RAJESH UPADHAYAY …Appellant(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant-original complainant
has questioned judgment and order dated 16.01.2025
of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature
at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.536 of 2024,
whereby the High Court suspended the sentence
imposed on respondent No.2 and released him on
bail during the pendency of the Appeal.
2.1 Respondent No.2-Rajesh Mahto alias
Rajesh Kumar Mahto son of Sheo Narayan Mahto,
came to be convicted under Section 302 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with
Page 1 of 9
imposition of fine of ₹ 20,000/-, by learned Additional
th
District and Sessions Judge, 19 Rohtas in Sessions
Trial No.101 of 2022. The respondent No.2 was further
convicted for the offence under Sections 342/149, IPC
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of
one year and to pay fine of ₹ 500/-. In respect of
conviction under Sections 147 and 504/149, IPC,
sentence of one year for each offence and fine of ₹ 500
and ₹ 1,000/- respectively was imposed.
2.2 Respondent No.2 came to be
convicted also for the offence under Section 148, IPC,
for which he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for a term of two years with fine of ₹ 1,000/-.
Conviction was also recorded by the Sessions Court
under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in respect
thereof respondent No.2 was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years and to
pay a fine of ₹ 3,000/-, with default clause.
3. The appellant-informant’s father
named one Krishna Behari Upadhyay who was
grandfather of respondent No.2 was murdered. As
per the prosecution story, on 11.12.2021 at about 4.30
p.m., the appellant along with his father Krishna
Behari Upadhyay reached at Mahavir temple of the
village to light ‘ Diya’ and to do ‘ Arti’ . At that time, the
accused persons and co-villagers Bashishthha Singh
Page 2 of 9
alias Munna Singh, Ajit Singh, Naga Kumar,
Raghunandan Kumar and Rajesh Mahto-respondent
No.2 herein wielding the arms and weapons reached,
at the temple. Hurling abuses, all of them surrounded
the appellant and his father, telling said Krishna
Behari Upadhyay that he was not performing P uja and
was engaging in politics.
3.1 It is the further case of the prosecution
that Pandit Krishna Behari Upadhyay tried to close the
main gate of the temple, but the accused persons
pushed the gate and made a forcible entry inside the
temple. Ajit Singh and Raghunandan Kumar caught
hold of Krishna Behari Upadhyay and Munna Singh is
stated to have fired at him with a revolver. It was
stated respondent No.2 also had a country-made
pistol with him and that he as well as his father Sheo
Narayan Mahto were instigatively uttering that the
Pandit should be killed as he was excessively
indulging in politics. Because of gun fire shots,
Krishna Behari Upadhyay fell down inside the temple
premises and was in a pool of blood.
3.2 The appellant somehow managed to
flee away from the place and informed his family
members. Om Prakash Tiwari and Ritesh Mukhia who
were the family members, as well as the other co-
villagers reached at the place of the offence. They
saw Munna Singh, Ajit Kumar, Naga Kumar,
Page 3 of 9
Raghunandan Kumar and respondent No.2-Rajesh
Kumar Mahto alias Rajesh as also Sheo Narayan
Mahto running away in the Eastern direction.
3.3 Upon being taken to the hospital,
Krishna Behari Upadhyay was declared dead. A
Fardbeyan was given by the appellant on 11.12.2021,
pursuant to which the police registered the First
Information Report No.96 of 2021 for the offences
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 504, 506, 302
and 120 (B), IPC, and for the offence under Section 27
of the Arms Act against the six persons, including
respondent No.2. On 02.02.2022, respondent No.2
surrendered before the Trial Court. Chargesheet
No.9 of 2022 was filed on 28.03.2022.
3.4 The Sessions Court convicted and
sentenced respondent No.2 for the offences as
mentioned above. In the appeal proceedings before
the High Court, respondent No.2 filed an application
praying for suspension of sentence, which was
allowed by the High Court and during the pendency
of the appeal, respondent No.2 was ordered to be
released on bail, suspending the sentence imposed
on him.
3.5 The High Court took the view that the
role attributed to respondent No.2 in the incident was
of instigation, therefore the sentence could be
Page 4 of 9
suspended. Accordingly to the High Court, the First
Information Report (FIR) was sent to the Magistrate’s
court after three days and further that the original
copy of the inquest report was not produced, which,
stated the High Court, were also the factors entitling
respondent No.2-the convict to be released on bail
during the pendency of the appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Tiwari for the appellant and Mr. Anshul
Narayan, learned additional standing counsel for the
respondent-State of Bihar.
5. There is no escape from the fact that
respondent No.2 is convicted under Section 302 read
with Section 149, IPC and is imposed with sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for life with payment of fine.
He is also convicted for the offence under the Arms
Act. Respondent No.2 had undergone incarceration
so far for three years. His appeal has been awaiting
final outcome.
5.1 It is to be stated that along with
respondent No.2 herein, his father Sheo Narayan
Mahto was also one of the accused. The High Court
decided Criminal Appeal (DB) No.542 of 2024 in
respect of said accused Sheo Narayan Mahto and by
a judgment and order dated 28.08.2024 suspended
Page 5 of 9
the sentence awarded to said Sheo Narayan Mahto.
Like the present respondent No.2, the said Sheo
Narayan Mahto the father of respondent was also
convicted for offence under Section 302 read with
Section 149, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for life and fine of ₹ 20,000/- and was also convicted
similarly in respect of other offences under the IPC
including for the offence under the Arms Act.
5.2 While suspending the sentence of the
present respondent No.2 as per the impugned
judgment and order, the High Court relied on
paragraph Nos.4,5,6 and 7 from the order dated
28.08.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.542 of
2024 and adopted the total reasoning of the said
judgment and order in case of Sheo Narayan Madho.
It is to be further noted that as recorded in the
impugned order, prosecution conceded that the role
attributed to the present respondent No.2 was similar
to the co-convict Sheo Narayan Mahto who was
released by the High Court on bail as per order dated
28.08.2024.
5.3 The High Court in the impugned order
observed while suspending the sentence and order
awarded to respondent No.2 herein and releasing
him bail during the pendency of the appeal, thus
Page 6 of 9
‘We are of the view that the case of the
appellant is similar to that of co-accused Sheo
Narayan Mahto and, therefore, when the co-
accused has been released on bail by this Court,
the case of the appellant for grant of bail and for
suspension of sentence requires consideration.’
5.4 According to the High Court, since the
role of respondent No.2 herein could also be said to
be one of instigation only, like that attributed to said
Sheo Narayan Mahto, present respondent No.2 is
entitled to be released on bail and his sentence is
required to be suspended.
6. The said Sheo Narayan Mahto
preferred Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8736
of 2025. This Court by a separate judgment and order
which is also pronounced today, set aside the said
order and cancelled the bail granted to said Sheo
Narayan Mahto. Respondent No.2 herein sails in the
same boat. The role attributed to present respondent
No.2 in the entire commission of crime in the crime
scenario is said as that of Sheo Narayan Mahto. Same
set of facts and circumstances apply to respondent
no.2 herein while considering the present appeal by
the appellant information which seeks cancellation of
bail granted to respondent No.2.
7. In the above view, the order of
suspension of sentence passed in favour of
respondent No.2 as well as bail granted to him by the
Page 7 of 9
High Court deserves to be cancelled for the very
reasons recorded in the judgment and order of this
Court in the Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
No.8736 of 2025 pronounced today. The discussion
supplied and reasons recorded in the abovesaid
judgment and order dated 17.12.2025 in paragraphs
5.1 to 09 would apply to the case of respondent No.2
herein and the same shall be treated to as part of this
order.
8. 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 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.
9. It goes without saying that
observations in this order are limited to the aspect of
suspending the sentence of respondent No.2 and
releasing him on bail, not to influence the course of
merit of the trial.
10. For foregoing reasons and discussion,
impugned judgment and order of the High Court
dated 16.01.2025 suspending the sentence of
Page 8 of 9
respondent No.2 is hereby set aside. Respondent
No.2 [Rajesh Mahto alias Rajesh Kumar Mahto son of
Sheo Narayan Mahto] is directed to surrender within
ten days. The police authorities shall ensure that said
respondent No.2 is sent behind the bars within the
above time permitted for surrendering.
11. The present appeal is accordingly
allowed.
In view of disposal of the Appeal, the
interlocutory applications, if any, shall not survive.
………………………………..,J.
[MANMOHAN]
………………………………….., J.
[ N.V. ANJARIA ]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 18, 2025.
(VK)
Page 9 of 9