1

                              NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.969 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.7544 of 2008)

Bakshish Ram & Anr.                                                 ………….. Appellants

Versus

State of Punjab                                                              …………..Respondent

O R D E R

1) Leave granted.

2) This  appeal  arises  out  of  the  judgment  and order  passed by the  High  

Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 487 – SB of 1994  

dated 26th day of March, 2008, wherein and where under, the court has  

confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge,  

Jalandhar dated 21.9.1994, sentencing the appellants Bakshish Ram and  

Dalip Kaur to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each for  

the  offences  under  Section  304-B read  with  Section  498-A IPC.  The  

appellants have also filed separate applications for grant of bail during  

the pendency of the appeal.   

3) A case was registered against the petitioners, viz., husband, mother-in-

law and father-in-law of the deceased under Section 304-B and Section

2

498-A  of  Indian  Penal  Code  on  7.7.1993.  The  Learned  Additional  

Session Judge, Jalandhar after appreciating the evidence on record has  

found the accused persons are guilty of the offences punishable under  

Section  304-B read  with  Section  498-A  IPC and,  accordingly,  has  

sentenced them for seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by  

the said judgment, appellants had filed a criminal appeal before the High  

Court with an application for suspension of sentence/grant of bail. The  

High  Court  at  the  preliminary  stage  considering  that  there  is  no  

likelihood of the appeal being heard early, suspended the sentence and  

granted bail to the accused by its orders dated 2.11.1994 and 16.12.1994.  

During the pendency of appeal Khushia Ram, accused no. 2 expired on  

21.7.2006  and,  therefore,  the  High  Court  has  dropped  proceedings  

against him.  

4) The High Court after scrutinizing the evidence on record has held that the  

deceased was compelled to commit suicide by the appellants in order to  

satisfy  their  lust  for  dowry,  for  which  appellants  are  responsible  and  

thereby dismissed the appeal.    

5) We have heard learned counsel for the accused/appellants  and learned  

counsel for the respondents.  

6) Learned  Counsel  for  the  appellants  would  submit  that  the  petition  is  

pending for adjudication before this Court and during its pendency this

3

Court may be pleased to grant bail to the appellants.  Learned Counsel  

would contend on behalf of appellant No.1/Bakshish Ram that he may be  

granted bail as he is the only bread earner of his family. Learned counsel  

would further contend on behalf of appellant no.2/Dalip Kaur that as she  

is  a  80  years  old  lady  and  is  suffering  from various  old  age  related  

ailments and therefore she may be granted bail.  

7) Before going into merits  of the application,  we intend to take note of  

some of the decisions of this court while considering the application for  

grant of interim bail. This Court in the case of Talab Haji Hussain vs.  

Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar, 1958 SCR 1226, has observed :  

          “It is to be remembered that it is not possible to give a list of  all the factors which a court may consider in the disposal of a  bail application. But, putting the whole thing singly the object,  which  a  court  dealing with  in  an  application  for  bail  must  keep  in  mind,  is  that  in  any  case  there  should  not  be  any  impediment in the progress of the fair trial.”  

8) This  Court  in  the  case  of  State  of  Maharashtra  v.  Anand  Chintaman  

Dighe, (1990) 1 SCC 397, has stated that where the offence is of serious  

nature, the court has to decide the question of grant of bail in the light of  

such considerations as the nature and seriousness of offence.  

9) It is clear from the various decisions of this Court as stated above that,  

cases where a serious offence had been committed and the accused had  

been held guilty for the said offence, then his application for grant of bail

4

should not be decided leniently during the pendency of the appeal. The  

seriousness  and  gravity  of  the  offence  must  be  looked  into  before  

granting the bail. In the instant case,  accused are convicted by the Trial  

Court for harassing, torturing and compelling the deceased to end her life  

by committing suicide, and the said conviction is confirmed by the High  

Court.  

10)In the case of Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 291, this  

Court observed that, so long as this Court is not in a position to hear the  

appeal of an accused within a reasonable period of time, the Court should  

ordinarily, unless there are cogent grounds for acting otherwise, release  

the accused on bail in cases where special leave has been granted to the  

accused to appeal against his conviction and sentence.

11) Now coming back to the facts of this case, in so far as the first appellant  

is concerned, the only reason assigned for grant of bail is that he is the  

only bread earner of the family. In the light of decisions of this court, this  

contention of the appellant does not impress us to release him on bail for  

the  alleged  offence  for  which  he  had  been  convicted  by  the  Courts.  

Therefore,  in  our view,  for the  present  he is  not  entitled to  the relief  

sought in the application.

12) With  regard  to  the  case  of  appellant  no.2/Dalip  Kaur,  it  has  been  

contended that she is an 80 years old lady and is suffering from various

5

age  related  ailments.  This  factual  assertion  is  not  disputed   by  the  

respondents. Looking at the age of the appellant it does not seem fair to  

hold her back in jail during the pendency of appeal even if she had been  

convicted for the alleged serious offence,  against which she has come  

before this Court. Furthermore, in the peculiar circumstances of this case  

and in view of the fact, that the appellant No. 2 is an old lady of 80 years  

of age and she had already been in jail for more than one year, in our  

view, she is entitled for the relief prayed in the application. Accordingly,  

we grant interim bail  to the second appellant,  subject  to the appellant  

furnishing  the  bail  bond  as  well  as  surety  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  

Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, Punjab.   The observations made  

by us is only for the purpose of disposal of this application and we make  

it  clear  that  we have not  expressed any opinion on the merits  of  this  

appeal.

13)Hearing of the appeal is expedited.  

14)The application for grant of bail is disposed of.  

                                                                                     …………………………………J.                                                                                        [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

                                                                                     …………………………………J.                                                                                        [ H.L. DATTU ] New Delhi,

6

May 08, 2009.