The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that the mere pendency of a criminal appeal, coupled with excessive pre-conviction incarceration and no foreseeable hearing date, justifies interim bail under Section 389 CrPC - even without a preliminary assessment of the appeal’s merits. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural justice must not be sacrificed to institutional delays.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Rahul Kumar Yaduvanshi, was convicted under Section 307 and Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code for attempt to murder and assault on a public servant. He was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 and six months under Section 353, along with fines of Rs. 5,000 each. He has already served a substantial portion of his sentence and filed an appeal challenging the conviction.
Procedural History
- Conviction and sentencing: Rendered by the Trial Court
- Appeal filed: CRA No. 10670 of 2025 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore
- Application filed: I.A. No. 874/2026 under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal
- No hearing date set: The appeal has not been listed for hearing despite being pending for over a year
Relief Sought
The appellant sought suspension of his sentence and release on bail pending the disposal of his appeal, arguing that continued incarceration would render the appeal futile due to the unreasonable delay in hearing.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits the grant of bail pending appeal when the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the foreseeable future, even if the merits of the appeal have not yet been evaluated.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that prolonged incarceration without a hearing defeats the very purpose of filing an appeal. He relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rameshwar and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to assert that the right to a speedy appeal is an essential facet of Article 21. He emphasized that the appellant had served a significant portion of his sentence and that the appeal’s delay was attributable to court backlogs, not the appellant’s conduct.
For the Respondent
The State opposed the bail prayer, contending that the gravity of the offences under Section 307 IPC - attempt to murder a public servant - warrants continued incarceration. It argued that bail should not be granted merely on the ground of delay, and that the court must first assess the likelihood of success on appeal before granting interim relief.
The Court's Analysis
The Court declined to evaluate the merits of the appeal, stating that doing so would be premature at the interim stage. Instead, it focused on the practical reality of judicial delay and its impact on fundamental rights. The Court observed that Section 389 CrPC is not contingent upon a prima facie finding of merit in the appeal; rather, it empowers the court to suspend sentence where the appellant demonstrates that continued incarceration would render the appeal nugatory.
"The purpose of an appeal is to correct a possible error. If the appeal is delayed to such an extent that the sentence is fully served before hearing, the appeal becomes an empty formality. The law cannot permit such a result."
The Court noted that the appellant had already served a considerable period in custody and that no timeline for hearing the appeal had been provided. It held that the right to a speedy trial extends to the appellate stage, and institutional delays cannot be used to justify continued detention. The Court further emphasized that bail under Section 389 CrPC is a discretionary remedy designed to preserve the efficacy of the appellate process.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The High Court granted bail pending appeal, directing the appellant to deposit any unpaid fine and furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with a solvent surety of the same amount. The appellant was ordered to appear before the Registry on 10 July 2026 and on subsequent dates as fixed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Is Not Dependent on Merits at Interim Stage
- Practitioners may now argue that Section 389 CrPC relief is available even without a preliminary assessment of appeal merits
- Courts must prioritize the functional viability of the appeal over speculative concerns about the strength of the case
- Delay alone, if substantial and unexplained, can justify interim bail under Section 389 CrPC
Institutional Delay Cannot Justify Prolonged Detention
- The judgment establishes that court-caused delays in hearing appeals are a valid ground for bail
- This applies equally to cases involving serious offences, provided the accused has served a significant portion of the sentence
- Lawyers should document and formally bring to the court’s attention the absence of hearing dates in pending appeals
Procedural Compliance Must Be Strictly Enforced
- Bail conditions must be clearly specified: bond amount, surety, and appearance dates
- Failure to deposit fines or comply with surety requirements may lead to immediate re-arrest
- The order reinforces that interim bail under Section 389 CrPC is not a right but a remedy contingent on strict adherence to conditions
