The Hindu : New Delhi News : Supreme Court refuses bail to Manu Sharma

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

New Delhi

New Delhi

Supreme Court refuses bail to Manu Sharma

J. Venkatesan

Awarded life imprisonment in Jessica Lal murder case

Delhi High Court reversed the order and awarded life imprisonment
‘When a person is convicted by appellate court, he cannot be an innocent person’

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an application filed by Manu Sharma, awarded life imprisonment in the Jessica Lal murder case, seeking suspension of the sentence and release on bail pending disposal of the appeal.

Dismissing the application, a Bench of Justice C. K. Thakker and Justice D. K. Jain said: “It is premature to express any opinion, one way or the other, at this stage but the fact remains that the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court has been set aside and the applicant-accused has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and ordered to undergo imprisonment for life.”

The prosecution case was that on the night of April 29-30, 1999, a party was organised at Delhi’s Tamarind Café and liquor was served. Jessica Lal and one Shyan Munshi who were in charge of the bar did not give liquor to Manu Sharma since the bar was closed. Enraged, the accused shot dead Jessical Lal. While the trial court acquitted him, the Delhi High Court reversed the order and awarded life imprisonment. The present appeal is directed against that judgment.

Rejecting the arguments of senior counsel Ram Jethmalani, the Bench said: “When a person is convicted by an appellate court, he cannot be said to be an `innocent person’ until the final decision is recorded by the superior court in his favour. Once a person has been convicted, normally, an appellate court will proceed on the basis that such person is guilty.”

Writing the judgment, Mr. Justice Thakker said: “It is well settled that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302, IPC, the Court should consider all the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after he has been convicted for committing serious offence of murder, etc.”

On Mr. Jethmalani’s contention that Manu Sharma was on bail during the trial, the Bench said: “The mere fact that during the period of trial the accused was on bail and there was no misuse of liberty does not per se warrant suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. What is really necessary is to consider whether reasons exist to suspend execution of the sentence and grant of bail.”

The Bench said “the accused has filed an appeal which has been admitted, is already on board and awaits final hearing. Hence, within `measurable distance of time’ the appeal is likely to be heard. Keeping in view the seriousness of offence, the manner in which the crime was said to have been committed and the gravity of offence, we are of the view that no case has been made out by the applicant-appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The application deserves to be dismissed.”

As and when the main matter – that is, criminal appeal -- will come up for hearing, it will be decided on its own merits without being inhibited or influenced by the observations in this order, the Bench said.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

New Delhi