Murder convict with 38-case history granted bail after 13 years in jail as Allahabad High Court cites appeal backlog

The appellant sought bail and suspension of sentence during his appeal against his conviction in Sessions Trial No. 391A of 2013, arising from a case under Section 302 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

The prosecution alleged that, in a group attack on 13 November 2012, the appellant and others fired at and killed Santosh Singh.

The appellant argued that no specific role in the murder was attributed to him, that the principal accused had been acquitted in a separate trial, and that the informant had acknowledged no prior enmity between the appellant and the deceased.

The judgment records that the appellant had been in custody since 21 February 2013, had a criminal history of 38 cases, and that the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future given the Court’s backlog.

1. Whether the appellant should be released on bail and his sentence suspended during the pendency of his appeal, having regard to the circumstances of the case, his period of incarceration, and the likely delay in hearing the appeal.

2. Whether the appellant’s criminal history, by itself, warranted refusal of bail.

The Court applied the principle that a criminal history, by itself, is not a sufficient ground to deny bail where the case otherwise warrants release.

It considered the appellant’s pending appeal, his prolonged incarceration, and the remote prospect of an early hearing as relevant circumstances in deciding whether to grant bail and suspend the sentence.

The judgment identifies the underlying conviction as arising under Section 302 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, but cites no specific statutory provision or precedent governing suspension of sentence or bail.

The Court considered the appellant’s submissions concerning the absence of a specific role and the acquittal of co-accused, alongside his custody since 2013 and the significant delay expected before the appeal could be heard.

Although the appellant had a substantial criminal history, the Court noted that several cases were registered after his incarceration and held that criminal history alone could not defeat an otherwise meritorious bail request.

The Court also relied on the volume of appeals before it and the remote possibility of an early hearing.

It suspended the sentence during the appeal, directed payment of 50% of the fine within one month of release, and stayed the remaining 50% pending the appeal.

The Court also directed preparation of the paper book and listed the appeal for hearing in due course.