The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that the pendency of a criminal appeal, even against a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, is sufficient grounds to suspend the sentence and grant bail, provided there is no risk of flight or tampering with evidence. The order underscores the procedural safeguard embedded in Section 389 of the CrPC, reinforcing that appellate rights must not be rendered illusory by immediate incarceration.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, Manbodh Kori and Dasai Kori, were convicted by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, in Sessions Trial No. 142/2019 for offences under Sections 302/149, 452/149, 148, and 323/149 of the IPC. The conviction arose from an alleged mob violence incident resulting in the death of Shivdas and injuries to others. The trial court found both appellants guilty of participating in an unlawful assembly that caused grievous harm and homicide.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on 12.04.2018, leading to the filing of FIR No. 142/2018 at Police Station Rewa City
- The deceased, Shivdas, was admitted to hospital on 12.04.2018 and died on 13.04.2018
- Post-mortem report (Exhibit P/12) recorded a single fatal head injury with underlying fracture, attributed to a blunt weapon
- Dr. Shikha Shrivastava (PW-23) testified that Shivdas was admitted to the Male Surgical Ward on 12.04.2018
- Dr. Atul Singh (PW-19) stated that the fatal injury was consistent with a blow from a lathi, which was recovered from Dasai Kori (Exhibit P/35)
- Blood stains on the lathi were confirmed to be of human origin, linking Dasai Kori directly to the fatal blow
- Other injured persons sustained only simple injuries
- The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony from 12 witnesses
- The trial court rejected the defence’s claim of over-implication
Procedural History
- 12.04.2018: Incident leading to FIR
- 15.06.2018: Charge sheet filed under Sections 302/149, 452/149, 148, 323/149 IPC
- 30.08.2025: Judgment and order of conviction and sentencing passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa
- Sentencing: Life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC; 7 years under Section 452/149; 3 years under Section 148; 1 year under Section 323/149; fines of Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 1,000/-, Rs. 1,000/-, Rs. 1,000/- respectively; default imprisonment of 3 months for each fine; all sentences to run concurrently
- 01.09.2025: Notice of appeal filed before the High Court
- 15.09.2025: Criminal Appeal No. 9210/2025 filed
- 25.09.2025: I.A. No. 30146/2025 filed under Section 389(1) CrPC seeking suspension of sentence and bail for Manbodh Kori
- 10.01.2026: I.A. No. 10464/2026 filed seeking same relief for both appellants
- 01.07.2026: Hearing before the Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant (Manbodh Kori)
- Argued that he was not present at the scene of the incident
- Contended that the prosecution failed to establish his active participation in the unlawful assembly
- Highlighted that the fatal injury was caused by Dasai Kori, as per medical evidence
- Asserted that the charges against him were general and omnibus, lacking specific attribution
- Submitted that the appeal has substantial grounds and a reasonable chance of success
- Emphasized that he has no prior criminal record and is not a flight risk
For the Respondent (State of Madhya Pradesh)
- Opposed bail on grounds of gravity of offence - murder under Section 302 IPC
- Argued that suspension of sentence would undermine public confidence in the justice system
- Pointed to the presence of blood on the weapon recovered from Dasai Kori as evidence of direct involvement
- Stated that the trial court’s findings were based on credible testimony and medical evidence
Relief Sought
The appellant sought suspension of the remaining part of his sentence and release on bail pending disposal of the appeal, subject to conditions including deposit of fine and furnishing of personal bond with solvent sureties.
The Legal Issue
Whether the High Court may suspend the sentence and grant bail under Section 389(1) CrPC to an appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC, where the appeal raises plausible grounds of acquittal, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rameshwar and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to argue that Section 389 CrPC is a procedural safeguard designed to preserve the appellant’s right to appeal. He submitted that the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence and that the fatal injury was clearly attributable to Dasai Kori, not Manbodh Kori. The absence of direct evidence linking Manbodh Kori to the fatal blow, coupled with the possibility of over-implication, established a prima facie case for acquittal. He further argued that the appellant had no criminal antecedents and was not likely to abscond.
For the Respondent
The Government Advocate contended that the gravity of the offence - murder - automatically disqualifies the appellant from bail, citing State of U.P. v. Anil Kumar and State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan Singh. He emphasized that the trial court had carefully evaluated the evidence and found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The State argued that granting bail in such cases would set a dangerous precedent and erode deterrence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Section 389(1) CrPC, which permits suspension of sentence pending appeal if the appellate court is satisfied that the appellant is likely to succeed on appeal and that the interests of justice so require. The Court noted that the provision does not require a conclusive finding on the merits of the appeal, but only a prima facie assessment.
"The object of Section 389 CrPC is to preserve the status quo pending appeal and not to determine guilt or innocence. The appellate court is not required to decide the appeal at the bail stage."
The Court observed that the appellant’s case was not one of direct participation in the fatal assault, as the medical evidence clearly pointed to Dasai Kori as the perpetrator of the fatal injury. The prosecution’s case against Manbodh Kori rested on membership of the unlawful assembly and general allegations, without specific acts of violence attributed to him. The Court held that these factors, taken together, raised a reasonable doubt about the sufficiency of evidence against him.
The Court further noted that the appeal would take considerable time for disposal, and that incarceration during such prolonged pendency would cause irreparable hardship. The Court declined to prejudge the outcome of the appeal but found sufficient grounds to suspend the sentence to preserve the appellant’s right to a meaningful appeal.
The Verdict
The application under Section 389(1) CrPC was allowed in respect of appellant No. 1, Manbodh Kori. The execution of the remaining part of his jail sentence is suspended. He is released on bail upon deposit of the fine amount, if not already paid, and upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. He shall appear before the Trial Court on 02.11.2026 and on such other dates as may be fixed. The appeal shall be listed along with Criminal Appeal No. 9210/2025.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Is Not Automatically Denied in Murder Cases
- Practitioners must argue that Section 389 CrPC permits bail even in heinous offences if the appeal raises plausible grounds
- The gravity of the offence alone cannot override the statutory right to suspend sentence pending appeal
- Courts must conduct a balanced assessment of likelihood of success, risk of flight, and public interest
Over-Implication Can Justify Suspension of Sentence
- Where the evidence against an appellant is general and lacks specific attribution to the fatal act, courts may find merit in suspending sentence
- Medical evidence distinguishing roles among co-accused strengthens the case for bail
- The burden is on the prosecution to prove active participation, not mere presence
Procedural Fairness Trumps Prejudgment
-
Appellate courts must avoid deciding the merits of the appeal at the bail stage
-
Suspension under Section 389 CrPC is a procedural right, not a substantive acquittal
-
Delay in appellate disposal is a valid consideration for granting bail
-
Always file I.A. under Section 389 CrPC immediately after filing the appeal
-
Ensure the application clearly distinguishes the appellant’s role from co-accused using medical and testimonial evidence
-
Submit affidavits of character and employment to rebut flight risk allegations
