Shakuntala Shukla widow of Retd Subedar who was murdered in 1995 filed an Appeal before the Supreme Court against the bail granted to the accused under Section 389 of the CrPC by the Allahabad High Court. The accused were convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

The Supreme Court in its judgement on September 7, 2021 allowed the criminal appeals filed by the appellant widow and quashed the bail order given by the High Court of Allahabad to the accused and also ordered the respondents to surrender and abide by the sentence given by the trial court. 

The Supreme Court while quashing the order of the High Court releasing the accused on bail pending appeal, said that the order granting bail to the accused pending appeal lacks total clarity on which part of the judgment and order can be said to be submissions and which part can be said to be the findings/reasonings. It does not even reflect the submissions on behalf of the Public Prosecutor opposing the bail pending appeal. A detailed counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State opposing the bail pending appeal which has not been even referred to by the High Court. The manner in which the High Court has disposed of the application under Section 389 CrPC  and  has disposed of the application for bail pending appeal cannot be approved. The court did not approve the manner in which the High Court has disposed of the application for bail, the court said that releasing the accused on bail application was unsustainable. The High Court has not at all considered the facts and circumstances of the case. Once the accused have been convicted by the learned trial Court, there shall not be any presumption of innocence after being convicted under the offences Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC, therefore, the High Court shall be very slow in granting bail to the accused pending appeal for such grave offences. The High Court has failed to note the circumstances of the events starting with the delayed investigation, conviction of the investigating officer and the doctor who performed the post mortem report. It was also noted that the High Court did not take note of the villagers who were threatened to not to speak against the accused and also the FIRs in the police station filed by the people who were threatened against the accused under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. The High Court ought to have noted that when the High Court released the accused on bail pending appeal, they have undergone only 8 months’ sentence against the life sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. 

The facts of the case are as follows: The dead body of Kripa Shankar Shukla and Bajrang Shukla was found lying in the well of one Chandramani Pandey on 28.10.1995 at 10:00 a.m; an application was then moved at the police station Bansdeeh, District Ballia, the police party prepared the inquest report on 15.11.1995, however, there was no proper investigation carried out by the police officer of police station Bansdeeh, District Ballia; after which some villagers sent the application to his Excellency the Governor for impartial investigation of the case; that on 13.12.1995, the appellant herein – Shakuntala Shukla (wife of the deceased) moved an application before his Excellency the President of India with the facts that she is a widow of Kripa Shankar Shukla (deceased) and her husband was murdered in the night of 26.10.1995 when he was coming back from Bansdeeh to his village Adar and thereafter the dead body was thrown in the well to create confusion; on the said application of the appellant herein, Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow directed for investigation of the matter by CB-CID; that during the investigation, the names of the private respondents herein – accused came into light; that CB-CID submitted the chargesheet against the accused Swaminath Yadav and others co-accused under Sections 147, 149, 302, 201, 218, 120B IPC; that the learned trial Court framed the charge under Sections 302/149, 201, 120B IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. 

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court imposing the sentence of life imprisonment, convicted accused – Swaminath Yadav has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1283/2018; convicted accused – Surendra Kumar Pandey has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1405/2018; convicted accused Jhingur Bhar has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1496/2018; and convicted accused Vikrama Yadav has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1398 of 2018 before the High Court. In the aforesaid Criminal Appeal No. 1283/2018, accused Swaminath Yadav preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application being Bail Application No. 1A/1 of 2018 praying for releasing him on bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal. Order dated 08.10.2018 passed by the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1A/1 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 1283/2018 in the case of accused – Swaminath Yadav has been followed in other three appeals and other three accused, namely, Surendra Kumar Pandey, Jhingur Bhar and Vikrama Yadav are also released on bail on parity and on the ground that co-accused Swaminath Yadav has been released on bail by a coordinate Bench. 

The Apex Court after listening to all the contentions made by both the parties and having gone through the judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail pending appeal against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court convicting them for the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC quashed and set aside, the order passed by the High Court. The accused were directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, failing which the learned trial Court is directed to issue warrants of arrest against them and take them into custody forthwith. This case is a real victory for the 70-year-old lady who has been fighting seeking justice for her husband’s murder from the past twenty six years. 

For complete Judgment :- Shakuntala Shukla Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 878 OF 2021; Bench Justices Dr. DY Chandrachud and M.R. Shah