Supreme Court: Whether the court should consider gravity of offence alongwith triple test before releasing any accused on regular bail?

Thus from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the Rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the Accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of "grave offence" and in such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the Accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the Accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a Rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provides so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the Accused to stand trial. {Para 21}

22. In the above circumstance it would be clear that even after concluding the triple test in favour of the Appellant the learned Judge of the High Court was certainly justified in adverting to the issue relating to the gravity of the offence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1831/2019 

Decided On: 04.12.2019

P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.

Author: A.S. Bopanna, J.

Citation: 2019 INSC 1317, MANU/SC/1670/2019

Print Page

Not Every Fracture Is ‘Attempt to Murder’: Supreme Court’s Practical Blueprint for Applying Section 307 IPC

ROSHAN LAL Vs THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR  2026 INSC 524,Dated: May 22, 2026

I. Why this judgment matters for Sessions Judges

In day‑to‑day Sessions trials, Section 307 IPC is frequently invoked wherever there is a head injury, use of a stick or sharp weapon, or an opinion that the injury was “dangerous to life”. Yet appellate courts regularly reduce such convictions to grievous hurt because the mental element of murder is not properly analysed in the judgment.

In this recent decision ROSHAN LAL Vs THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR  2026 INSC 524,Dated: May 22, 2026, the Supreme Court has carefully revisited Section 307 IPC and, while ultimately converting the conviction to Section 325 IPC, has laid down a clear, workable framework for identifying the essential ingredients of “attempt to murder”. 

Print Page

Supreme Court: Gravity Of Injury Not Enough To Convict For Attempt To Murder U/ S. 307 IPC Without Proof Of Intention To Cause Death

The essential ingredient of the offence of attempt to murder is

the intention to cause death. Such intention exists prior to the

actual attempt and must be established independently of the act

itself or the actus reus. Once the requisite intention to commit

murder is proved, the eventual outcome of the attempt becomes

irrelevant, unless the attempt culminates in death, in which case

the offence would fall within Section 300 IPC. In the absence of

proof of intention, a conviction under this provision cannot be

sustained.

32. Intention, however, can be inferred from surrounding

circumstances, such as the type of weapon employed, the words

spoken by the accused at the time of the incident, the motive behind the act, the parts of the body targeted, the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted, as well as the force and manner in which the blows were delivered.

33. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid legal principles, the factual matrix of the present case may now be considered. There is no history of enmity known between the appellants and the injured. The prosecution has also failed to bring on record any material suggesting prior planning, preparation, or concerted intention on the part of the appellants to cause the death of Amar Singh (PW3). On the contrary, the evidence reveals that the incident occurred suddenly when the injured intervened in an altercation involving the driver of the jeep. The assault, therefore, appears to have arisen in the heat of the moment and as a spontaneous reaction to such intervention, rather than pursuant to any pre-conceived intention to eliminate the complainant.

34. The circumstances, viewed holistically, suggest that the

object of the appellants was primarily to deter or intimidate the

complainant from interfering in the ongoing altercation. It is also

significant that the weapons allegedly used by the appellants were ordinary lathis, which, though capable of causing grievous hurt depending upon the manner of use, cannot in the facts of the

present case be regarded as inherently deadly weapons. There is

nothing on record to indicate that the appellants persisted in the

assault with such brutality or ferocity so as to unmistakably

disclose an intention to cause death.

35. Undoubtedly, the injuries sustained by Amar Singh (PW3) were grievous in nature, and the medical evidence demonstrates that the injury to the head subsequently led to serious complications. However, the gravity of the injury by itself cannot be determinative of the offence under Section 307 IPC unless the prosecution is able to establish the requisite mens rea contemplated under the provision. The intention to commit murder cannot be presumed merely because the injuries were ultimately opined to be dangerous to life. In the absence of evidence showing prior motive, premeditation, repeated deliberate blows with deadly weapons, or any conduct indicative of a determined effort to cause death, this Court is unable to hold that the appellants possessed the intention or knowledge necessary to attract Section 307 IPC in the light of Bipin Bihari (supra).

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2207 OF 2011

ROSHAN LAL Vs THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR 

Author: NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

Citation:  2026 INSC 524

Dated: May 22, 2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Punishment Must Be In Proportion To Gravity Of Offence

This Court, while enhancing the sentence observed, after characterising the punishment as unconscionably lenient or a ‘flea-bite’ sentence, that consideration of undue sympathy in

such cases will lead to miscarriage of justice and

undermine confidence of the public in the efficacy of the

criminal justice system. In short, there cannot be any

doubt with respect to the position that in imposing

sentence the Court is to take into consideration the

nature of the offence, circumstances under which it was

committed, degree of deliberation shown by the

offender, antecedents of the offender upto the time of

sentence, etc., and, in the absence of any exceptional

circumstances, impose sentence in tune with the rule of

proportionality in providing punishment though it falls

within the realm of judicial discretion.

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. of 2024

(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11461 of 2022)

Baba Natarajan Prasad  Vs M. Revathi

Author: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

Dated: July 15, 2024.

Citation: 2024 INSC 523.

Print Page

Whether the court must hear prosecution before the suspension of sentence of convict and his release on bail?

 It may be seen that there is a marked difference between the
procedure for consideration of bail under Section 439, which is pre
conviction stage and Section 389 Cr.PC, which is post conviction

stage. In case of Section 439, the Code provides that only notice to
the public prosecutor unless impractical be given before granting
bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable
exclusively by the Court of Sessions or where the punishment for
the offence is imprisonment for life; whereas in the case of post
conviction bail under Section 389 Cr.PC, where the conviction in
respect of a serious offence having punishment with death or life
imprisonment or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, it
is mandatory that the appellate court gives an opportunity to the
public prosecutor for showing cause in writing against such release.{Para 14}
15. Service of a copy of the appeal and application for bail on the
public prosecutor by the appellant will not satisfy the requirement of first proviso to Section 389 Cr.PC. The appellate court may even
without hearing the public prosecutor, decline to grant bail.
However, in case the appellate court is inclined to consider the
release of the convict on bail, the public prosecutor shall be granted
an opportunity to show cause in writing as to why the appellant be
not released on bail. Such a stringent provision is introduced only to
ensure that the court is apprised of all the relevant factors so that
the court may consider whether it is an appropriate case for release having regard to the manner in which the crime is committed, gravity of the offence, age, criminal antecedents of the convict, impact on public confidence in the justice delivery system, etc.
Despite such an opportunity being granted to the public prosecutor,
in case no cause is shown in writing, the appellate court shall record
that the State has not filed any objection in writing. This procedure
is intended to ensure transparency, to ensure that there is no
allegation of collusion and to ensure that the court is properly
assisted by the State with true and correct facts with regard to the
relevant considerations for grant of bail in respect of serious
offences, at the post conviction stage.
16. To sum up the legal position,
a.
The appellate court, if inclined to consider the release of a
convict sentenced to punishment for death or imprisonment
for life or for a period of ten years or more, shall first give an
opportunity to the public prosecutor to show cause in writing
against such release.
b.
On such opportunity being given, the State is required to file
its objections, if any, in writing.

c.
In case the public prosecutor does not file the objections in
writing, the appellate court shall, in its order, specify that no
objection had been filed despite the opportunity granted by
the court.
d.
The court shall judiciously consider all the relevant factors
whether specified in the objections or not, like gravity of
offence, nature of the crime, age, criminal antecedents of the
convict, impact on public confidence in court, etc. before
passing an order for release.
17. Admittedly, no such opportunity was granted to the State as
contemplated under the first proviso of Section 389 Cr.PC in these
appeals. Therefore, the impugned orders to the extent of release of
the private respondents on bail are set aside. 
 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1516 OF 2014


Atul Tripathi V State of U.P. and another


Citation;2014 ALLMR(cri) 3326 SC

Print Page