Grant of Bail at Appeal Stage – High court granted bail – Apex court held that both the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision filed by both the parties are pending before the High Court which means that the convictions of the respondents are not confirmed by the appellate court. Secondly, it is an admitted fact that the respondents had been granted bail earlier and they did not misuse the liberty. Also, the respondents had conceded to the occurrence of the incident though with a different version. =CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1664 OF 2014 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(Crl.) NO. 2930 OF 2013) SUNIL KUMAR APPELLANT Vs. VIPIN KUMAR AND ORS. RESPONDENTS = 2014 Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41815

Grant of Bail at Appeal Stage – High court granted bail – Apex court held that both the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision filed by  both the parties  are  pending  before  the  High  Court  which  means  that  the convictions of the respondents are not confirmed  by  the  appellate  court. Secondly, it is an admitted fact that the respondents had been granted  bail

earlier and they did not misuse  the  liberty.  Also,  the  respondents  had conceded to the occurrence of the incident though with a different  version.    =

389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal;  release  of  appellant  on

bail.

(1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court  may,  for

reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that  the  execution  of  the

sentence or order appealed against be suspended  and,  also,  if  he  is  in

confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond.”

15.   The learned senior counsel has also relied upon the decision  of  this

Court in the case of Vijay Kumar v. Narendra  &  Ors.[1]  and  the  case  of

Kishori Lal v. Rupa[2] wherein this Court has set aside bail granted by  the

High Court under Section 389 on the ground that the  decision  of  the  High

Courts were not based on sound legal reasoning.

16.   On the other hand, while seeking bail for the respondents  before  the

High  Court,  the  learned  senior  counsel  on  behalf  of  the   convicted

respondents contended that the convicted respondents were  on  bail  earlier

but they did not misuse the liberty.

17.   It  was  also  contended  by  the  learned  senior  counsel  that  the

respondents did not dispute the  date,  time  and  place  of  the  incident.

However, there was a different version of the incident according to them.

18.   We have heard the rival legal contentions raised by both the  parties.

We are  of  the  opinion  that  the  High  Court  has  rightly  applied  its

discretionary power under Section 389 of CrPC to enlarge the respondents  on

bail.

Firstly, both the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision filed by  both

the parties  are  pending  before  the  High  Court  which  means  that  the

convictions of the respondents are not confirmed  by  the  appellate  court.

Secondly, it is an admitted fact that the respondents had been granted  bail

earlier and they did not misuse  the  liberty.  Also,  the  respondents  had

conceded to the occurrence of the incident though with a different  version.

19.     We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  High  Court  has  taken   into

consideration all the relevant facts including the fact that the  chance  of

the appeal being heard in the near future is extremely  remote,  hence,  the

High Court has released the respondents on bail on the basis of sound  legal

reasoning. We do not wish to interfere with the decision of the  High  Court

at this stage. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.