2005 (9) TMI 694 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - Offence u/s 302 r/w Section 34 - Challenged the Order passed for Grant Of Bail - HELD THAT - We agree with the submission urged before us that the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of the High Court are only in the nature of guidelines and the High Court should not be understood to have laid down an invariable rule to be observed with mathematical precision. In fact in the very first paragraph of the judgment the learned Judges observed that they were making an attempt to frame certain guidelines for the grant of bail. Difficulties may arise if such a direction is treated as an invariable rule in the matter of grant of discretionary relief. The rule laid down in Dharampal s case may be inferentially understood to mean that unless a convict has undergone five years imprisonment he should not be released on bail. This would again lead to travesty of justice because in a given case having regard to the evidence on record and the reasoning of the Court convicting the accused the High Court in an appeal may well be persuaded and justified in granting bail to the appellant even while admitting his appeal. We therefore hold that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Dharampal s case laid down guidelines which ought to be kept in mind by Courts dealing with applications for grant of bail in a pending appeal. It does not lay down any hard and fast rule of universal application. As we have observed earlier it would be futile to lay down any strait jacket formula in such matters. So far as the instant appeal is concerned by our order dated May 12 2005 we have granted bail to the appellant who had remained in custody for about six years and four months. Apart from the facts and circumstances of the case we also notice the fact that the co-accused had been released on bail by the High Court. The interim order made on May 5 2005 is made absolute. This appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.

Summary

Issues:
- Bail application based on the judgment in Dharampal's case
- Interpretation of guidelines for bail in pending appeals
- Consideration of speedy trial as a fundamental right
- Discretionary nature of bail decisions

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought bail based on the judgment in Dharampal's case, arguing that he had served more than three years of actual sentence and should be released. However, the High Court rejected his bail application, noting that he had only been in actual custody for two years and five months after conviction, considering time spent on parole. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court for bail.

2. The Supreme Court analyzed the guidelines set in Dharampal's case, which directed the release of life convicts who had served at least five years of imprisonment, with three years post-conviction. The Court clarified that these guidelines were not strict rules but factors to consider in bail applications. It emphasized the importance of a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, highlighting the need to balance personal liberty with the timely disposal of appeals.

3. The Court referenced previous cases emphasizing the need for a reasonable period for appeal disposal to prevent unjustified incarceration. It noted that while guidelines exist, there is no fixed rule for granting bail based on a specific period of detention. The Court stressed the discretionary nature of bail decisions, requiring consideration of individual circumstances and the principles of justice.

4. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the guidelines from Dharampal's case were not absolute rules but factors to guide courts in bail decisions. It granted bail to the appellant, considering his six years and four months in custody, along with the release of a co-accused. The Court reaffirmed that bail decisions should be based on a case-by-case analysis, avoiding rigid formulas in discretionary matters. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.