The Supreme court in its recent judgment held that India cannot have two parallel legal systems ‘one for the rich and the resourceful and those who wield political power and influence and the other for the small men without resources and capabilities to obtain justice or fight injustice’.

The instant appeal was heard by the bench of Supreme court  Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah  arose from the order  of the high court of Madhya Pradesh seeking the revocation of suspension of sentence and the bail granted to the second respondent where the second respondent was convicted of an offence under sec  302 IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment and the high court directed that the sentence may be suspended during the pendency of the appeal under the provisions of Sec 389(1) of CrPC. The applications were moved before the high court of Madhya Pradesh for the cancellation of bail and revocation of the order on the ground that the second respondent has been convicted of 2 other offences and has been convicted of an offence punishable under sec 399 and 402 IPC and an FIR has been filed at the behest of the appellant alleging that the 2nd respondent murdered the appellants father during the period when he was on bail. 

The facts of the case indicate that despite the registration of an FIR wherein Chaurasia’s son Somesh has alleged that Govind Singh(respondent) was complicit in the murder of his father, no steps have been taken by the investigating authorities to arrest him, noted the Court. The Supreme Court categorically stated that the Madhya Pradesh Police have been complicit in shielding Govind Singh. His spouse, who is an MLA, was provided security in the state but the DGP informed this court that the accused could not be arrested. 

The court was of the view that the High court in its impugned order allowed the second respondent who allegedly committed murder during the period in which his sentence was suspended to continue on bail and in adopting such a procedure the High Court has in effect stultified the administration of criminal justice. Sec 389(1) allows the court to release a convicted person on bail and only on relevant factors a bail shall be granted at the post conviction stage. This Court in Ramji Prasad vs. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and Anr [3 (2002) 9 SCC 366 4] has observed that in cases involving conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, the sentence should be suspended only in exceptional cases. The bench opined that the High Court has committed serious error in its impugned order   by simply disposing of the IAs seeking cancellation of bail ignored material considerations which ought to have weighed in the decision. 

In finality, the Hon’ble court directed that the order of the High Court shall be set aside and the bail granted to the second respondent shall be cancelled and also directed that the second respondent be moved to another jail in Madhya Pradesh to ensure that fair course of the criminal proceedings is not deflected.

Please find the full text of the judgement