This article is written by Shivani. A. This is an exhaustive article analysing the case of Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab. This judgement is considered a landmark, as the Supreme Court in this case provided interpretation of the law pertaining to the grant of bail to a person convicted of life imprisonment during the pendency of his appeal. This article provides the brief facts of the case, the issues involved and the judgement of the case. It also deals with the important provisions of the law used by the judges while delivering the judgement.
Table of Contents
Introduction
It is a well known principle of the criminal justice system that “Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.” The term ‘bail’ refers to the release of a person from legal custody on some surety and on the condition that the person will appear before the Court whenever he is required to do so. The right to bail is one of the rights recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which provides for the right to life and personal liberty of an individual. However, the High Courts and the Supreme Court used to follow a common practice that, whenever a person was convicted for imprisonment for life and the accused person filed for an appeal, he would not be granted bail even if his appeal was pending before the appellate court and the hearing was not likely to take place anytime soon. This practice is not followed at present and has been abolished as it is considered to be detrimental to the rights of the accused. The Supreme Court abolished this practice of not granting bail to a person convicted of life imprisonment even when his appeal is pending in the appellate court for the first time in the case of Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab (1977). By delivering this judgement, the Court ensured that the rights of the convict were protected by the court(s).
Details of the case
Case name: Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab
Case number: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1907 of 1976
Equivalent Citations: 1977 AIR 2147, (1977) 4 SCC 291, 1977 SCC (Cri) 559
Acts involved: The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Important provisions: Section 302, Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Court: Supreme Court
Bench: Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Justice A.C. Gupta
Appellant: Kashmira Singh
Respondents: State of Punjab & Ors.
Judgement Date: 2nd September 1977
Facts of the case
In this case, the appellant was charged under Section 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and Section 302 (Punishment for murder) of the IPC . He was then convicted by the trial court under Section 323. When an appeal was filed by the State in the High Court, the Court set aside his acquittal under Section 302 and thereafter convicted him for murder. The appellant was then sentenced to life imprisonment. Special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted on February 28, 1974. The appellant’s application for bail pending the hearing of the appeal was dismissed on January 10, 1975. Consequently, the appellant preferred another bail application.
Issues raised
Whether a person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment can be released on bail during the pendency of the disposal of his appeal by special leave?
Arguments of the parties
Arguments of the appellant
The main contention of the appellant was that he should be released on bail as the application of his appeal has been pending for a very long time and that the hearing of the same will not take place in the near future. Therefore, the appellant prayed before the Court to grant him bail.
Arguments of the respondent
In the instant case, the main contention raised by the respondent was that the accused should not be granted bail as it would be against the practice followed by the High Courts and the Supreme Court. As already mentioned previously in this article, it was a common practice of most of the High Courts and the Supreme Court to not grant bail to a person who was convicted of life imprisonment. Even in the present case, since the accused was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life, the respondent claimed that the Supreme Court should follow the same practice even in the present case and should not release the accused on bail.
Provisions involved in Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab (1977)
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302 of IPC
This Section provides information as to the punishment which can be given to a person who has been convicted and is found guilty of committing murder under Section 300 of the IPC. It states that if any person is found guilty of committing murder, he could either be punished with death penalty or with imprisonment for life and with a fine of certain amount, which will be decided by the Court.
Section 323 of IPC
This Section provides information about a situation in which a person commits the offence of causing voluntary hurt to another person. It states that if a person voluntarily causes hurt to another person, he can be punished with imprisonment for a maximum term of 1 year or he can be asked to pay a fine of a maximum of 1000 rupees, or both, depending on the decision of the Court.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 389 of CrPC
This Section provides information on whether a person can be released on bail when he has already been convicted but the hearing of his appeal is pending in the appellate court. Section 389(1) provides that the person can be released on bail during the pendency of his appeal, provided that the appellate court records the reasons for the release of the convict. It further states that, if the person is convicted for an offence for which the punishment is death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years, the Court should give an opportunity to the public prosecutor to file an application and provide reasons for cancellation of the bail.
Further, Section 389(2) provides that, if the person convicted has filed an appeal in any appellate court other than the High Court and his appeal is pending in such an appellate court, even in such a situation, the High Court can exercise the powers that are conferred on it under this Section. This means that the High Court can order the appellate court, which is subordinate to it and in which the appeal of the convict is pending, to suspend the sentence and grant bail to the convict.
Also, it is provided under Section 389(3) that the convicted person can be released on bail only up to the duration in which the appeal is heard by the appellate court. It is also provided that, once the person convicted has been released on bail, the sentence that was initially imposed on him is considered to be suspended for the duration in which he is on bail. The Section also states that, when the convict is finally sentenced by the appellate court for imprisonment of a certain term or imprisonment for life, the time during which the convict is released on bail is excluded while calculating the term of imprisonment of the convict.
Judgement in Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab (1977)
It was held by the Supreme Court in this case that, if the appellate court is not in a position to hear the case of a convict within a reasonable period of time, then he must be released on bail. It was also observed by the Court that the practice of the High Court and the Supreme Court of not granting bail to a person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment even when the Court will not be able to hear the case of the person within a reasonable period amounts to an injustice to the convict.
Analysis of the judgement
In the instant case, the appellant was at first convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months by the Sessions Court. However, he filed for an appeal in the High Court and was thereby granted bail throughout the period during which the appeal was pending before the Court. Later, when the matter was heard by the High Court, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and was thereby held to serve the sentence of imprisonment for life. However, the appellant surrendered before presenting his petition for special leave to the Supreme Court and has ever since remained in jail for about 4 and a half years.
The Court also observed that the appeal was filed in 1974 and was not likely to be heard anytime soon for at least 2 years. Therefore, the Supreme Court considered the petition filed by the appellant and granted him special leave to appeal against his conviction. This in itself shows that the Court believed that the appellant had a prima facie case to be considered and that it would be highly unjust to detain him any longer in jail during the pendency of the hearing of his appeal.
Therefore, the Court held that the Supreme Court must release a convict on bail if the Court is not in a position to hear the appeal within a reasonable period of time, unless there are any reasonable grounds to deny bail to the person.
Rationale for the judgement
With regards to the practice followed by the High Courts and the Supreme Court, the Court observed that “No practice, however sanctified by usage and hallowed by time, can be allowed to prevail if it operates to cause injustice.” The Court further stated that every practice of the Courts must conform to the interests of justice.
The practice that was followed by the Courts to not release a person who had been convicted to imprisonment for life evolved for the reason that the judges were of the view that once a person has been convicted, he should not be let loose unless his conviction was overturned. However, this understanding was based on the premise that the appeal of the person convicted would be heard within a reasonable time and if he was found to be innocent, he would not have to remain in jail for a long period of time. However, the Court also observed that the rationale of the above practice does not hold good when the appellate Court is not in a position to dispose of the appeal for five or six years, as the Court observed that it would be a travesty of justice to keep the convict in jail for a period of five or six years for an offence that is ultimately found to not have been committed by him.
Similar case laws
Urman vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)
Facts of the case
In this case, the appellant was convicted for committing offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 504 of the IPC on 14th November 2011. After spending almost more than 15 years in actual custody without any remission, he filed an application for bail before the High Court for the first time on 29th May, 2015, which was rejected by the Court. Aggrieved by the decision of the Court, the appellant filed another application for bail on 8th September, 2021, but the High Court denied this application as well. Therefore, the appellant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court so that he could be released on bail by the High Court.
Issue of the case
Whether the appellant can be granted bail by the Court?
Judgement of the case
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to bail. This is because the Court observed that the appeal filed by the appellant was pending before the High Court and the hearing of the same would not take place anytime soon. Therefore, the Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant.
Sanjay Bhat vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)
Facts of the case
In this case, the Sessions Court convicted the accused for committing offences under Section 147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 201 and Section 302 of the IPC on 15th August, 2014. The Court also declared that the accused would be punished for committing murder and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by this, the convict filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court on 30th August, 2016. The convict subsequently filed an application for bail before the High Court, but the High Court rejected the application on 1st October, 2019. Therefore, the convict filed for an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issue of the case
Whether the appellant can be granted bail by the Court?
Judgement of the case
It was held by the Supreme Court in the instant case that the accused must be granted bail. This is because the Court observed that the person had already served a sentence of 11 years and 8 months without any remission and also that there is no immediate possibility that the appeal of the person would be hard by the Court.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be concluded that the judgement delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab can be considered a landmark judgement by all the other courts in the country. This is because, by delivering the judgement in favour of the convict and by invalidating the practice that was followed by the High Courts and also the Supreme Court for many years, the Court made sure that it upheld the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, the Court observed that even though a person convicted for imprisonment of life cannot claim for bail as a matter of his right, the Court must consider the circumstances of the case and grant him bail if the circumstances permit the Court to do so. The Court also stated that if the appeal filed by the convict is pending before the appellate court for a long period of time and there is no possibility that the hearing of the appeal of the convict will take place within a reasonable period of time, the Court should release the person on bail in the interest of justice.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is the meaning of life imprisonment?
Life imprisonment is a kind of punishment that is provided under the IPC, according to which the person who is imposed with such a punishment is supposed to remain in jail until the end of his life. However, the sentence can be remitted as per Section 342 of the Cr.P.C. However, the total sentence cannot be reduced to less than 14 years, as per Section. It is up to the state to decide whether the accused is to stay in jail throughout his entire life or for 14 years.
What are the various kinds of bail available to an individual?
There are 4 kinds of bail that are provided in the Cr.P.C. They are as follows:
- Regular bail: This is a kind of bail that is most commonly used by an arrested person. One of the prerequisites for filing an application for this bail is that the person filing such application must be arrested and if the person has not been arrested, he cannot claim regular bail. Information about this kind of bail is provided under Section 437 and Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
- Interim Bail: The literal meaning of the term ‘interim’ is ‘temporary’. Therefore, whenever a person is said to have been released on interim bail, it means that he is on bail for a short period of time. It is granted to an accused before the hearing of regular or anticipatory bail.
- Anticipatory Bail: This is a bail that is provided to a person when he has a reasonable apprehension of getting arrested. If a person suspects that he might get arrested for non bailable offence, he may file a petition for anticipatory bail. The provision for anticipatory bail is provided under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. One of the important features of anticipatory bail is that it can only be invoked by a person before he is arrested by the police.
- Statutory Bail: This kind of bail is also known as ‘default bail’. There is a difference between statutory bail and the bail that is granted under Sections 437, 438 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. The main difference between statutory bail and the bail provided under Sections 437, 438 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. is that statutory bail can only be granted when a person files a complaint and the police officer or any other investigating agency refuses recording the complaint within a specific time limit.
Can a person who is convicted of an offence be granted bail?
Yes, a person can be released on bail even after he is convicted of committing an offence. This usually takes place when the person has filed an appeal in an appellate court and the hearing of the appeal is pending in the said court. This is provided under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. However, unlike regular bail, this kind of bail cannot be claimed by the convict as a matter of right; rather, it is granted by the court at its discretion. The court considers various factors before granting bail, such as the nature of the offence for which the person has been convicted, the character of the person, etc.
References
