Supreme Court Cancels High Court Bail Orders For Convicts In Temple Murder, Directs Surrender

A bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Manmohan heard appeals by the complainant challenging Division Bench orders of the Patna High Court that had suspended sentences and granted bail to two convicts in a village temple murder. The appeals arose from convictions under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and ancillary offences, and the central question was whether the High Court erred in suspending sentences and releasing the convicted respondents during the pendency of their appeals.

The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court orders, holding that suspension of sentence in cases of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC is permissible only in exceptional circumstances and that the High Court had erred in relying on immaterial factors and in discounting the gravity of the respondents’ participation. The Court observed that the High Court “was in evident error” in resting upon delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate and non-production of the original inquest report. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The High Court has not at all appreciated and considered the fact that the learned trial court on appreciation of evidence has convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120-B IPC. Once the accused have been convicted by the learned trial court, there shall not be any presumption of innocence thereafter. Therefore, the High Court shall be very slow in granting bail to the accused pending appeal who are convicted for the serious offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120-B IPC.” The Court further noted that the respondents had carried firearms and were heard shouting “kill him,” and that medical evidence describing an entry wound and a brass foreign body lodged in the brain supported the trial court’s findings. The Supreme Court directed both respondents to surrender within ten days and remitted them to custody; interlocutory applications, if any, would not survive.

Background

The prosecution alleged that on December 11, 2021, Krishna Behari Upadhyay was shot dead inside the village Mahavir temple. The complainant (son of the deceased) stated that a group including Bashishthha Singh alias Munna Singh, Ajit Singh, Naga Kumar, Raghunandan Kumar, Sheo Narayan Mahto and Rajesh Mahto entered the temple, abused the victim, forced entry and, having armed themselves, shouted that the Pandit should be killed. The Sessions Court convicted Sheo Narayan Mahto and Rajesh Mahto (among others) under Sections 302/149 and several other provisions, and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, awarding life imprisonment and other sentences. In separate Division Bench orders, the High Court suspended sentences and released each convicted respondent on bail during the pendency of their appeals, reasoning that their role amounted to instigation and noting procedural gaps such as a three-day delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate and non-production of the original inquest report.

On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed statutory principles under Section 389 CrPC and followed settled precedents emphasizing that suspension of sentence in murder cases should be exceptional and that appellate courts must not reappreciate evidence at the suspension stage. The Court held that the High Court’s reliance on procedural delays and non-production of documents was “illogical” and irrelevant to displace the trial court’s findings, particularly when ocular and medical evidence supported conviction. The appeals were allowed, the High Court orders were set aside, and both respondents were directed to surrender within ten days for incarceration; the observations were confined to the suspension-of-sentence aspect and did not affect the trial’s merits.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1468 Case Title: Rajesh Upadhayay v. The State of Bihar & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari (Advocate) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anshul Narayan (Additional Standing Counsel, State of Bihar)