-
by sayum
06 April 2026 2:01 PM
“Suspension of Sentence Is Not a Matter of Routine in Section 302 Conviction – Gravity of Offence, Armed Role, and Instigation Must Be Judged Rigorously” – Supreme Court Slams High Court Leniency In a strongly worded judgment delivered on December 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of India set aside the orders of the Patna High Court granting suspension of sentence and bail to two convicts — Sheo Narayan Mahto and his son Rajesh Mahto — who had been convicted of murder, criminal conspiracy, and unlawful assembly in a temple killing in Bihar. The Apex Court held that the High Court had misapplied legal principles, wrongly treating "instigation" as a ground for bail despite the established fact that both accused were armed and actively participated in the coordinated and fatal group assault.
A Bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice N.V. Anjaria cancelled the bail orders passed by the High Court on 28.08.2024 (Sheo Narayan Mahto) and 16.01.2025 (Rajesh Mahto). The Court observed that both convicts were not passive spectators but instigators with firearms, who played active roles in the unlawful assembly that led to the murder of Krishna Behari Upadhyay, a temple priest and father of the complainant.
Quashing the High Court’s reasoning as erroneous, superficial, and inconsistent with binding precedent, the Supreme Court reiterated that “post-conviction, the presumption of innocence no longer holds”, and bail in a Section 302 IPC case must be granted only in exceptional circumstances — which were entirely absent in the present matter.
SC Rules That Armed Instigators Cannot Seek Leniency in Premeditated Group Murder
In the case of Rajesh Upadhyay v. State of Bihar & Anr., Criminal Appeals arising from SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8736–8737 of 2025, the Supreme Court set aside the bail orders granted to two life convicts in a murder case that took place inside a temple in broad daylight, emphasizing that courts must not treat “instigation” as a lesser offence when it is part of a coordinated and armed attack resulting in death.
Both Sheo Narayan Mahto and his son Rajesh Mahto had been convicted by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rohtas, under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, along with multiple other charges, and were serving life sentences. The High Court, however, suspended their sentence and granted bail, citing delay in FIR reaching the magistrate and non-production of the original inquest report, besides their alleged limited role of instigation.
The Supreme Court ruled that these reasons had “no bearing on the credibility of the prosecution case”, and instead, overlooked the gravity and nature of the offence, and the clear involvement of both accused in the fatal attack.
Father-Son Duo Part of Armed Group That Stormed Temple and Killed Priest
The brutal killing took place on December 11, 2021, around 4:30 PM at the Mahavir Temple in a village in Bihar. The deceased, Krishna Behari Upadhyay, was the father of the complainant and a respected priest of the temple.
According to the prosecution, as Krishna Behari was performing Arti with his son, a group of accused, including Munna Singh, Ajit Singh, Naga Kumar, Raghunandan Kumar, and the two respondents Sheo Narayan Mahto and Rajesh Mahto, arrived at the temple armed with weapons, and began hurling abuses. They forcibly pushed open the temple gate and entered.
As per eyewitnesses and medical evidence, Munna Singh fired a revolver at the deceased, while others caught hold of him. Both Sheo Narayan and Rajesh carried country-made pistols and were instigating loudly to “kill him”, accusing the priest of engaging in politics.
Despite the complainant fleeing and raising alarm, the armed group managed to escape. Krishna Behari was declared dead at the hospital, and the post-mortem confirmed gunshot injuries, including a bullet lodged in the brain. The FIR was lodged the same day, and all six accused, including the respondents, were later charged and convicted under multiple IPC provisions and the Arms Act.
“No Presumption of Innocence After Conviction – Bail in Murder Cases Demands Extraordinary Circumstances”
The Supreme Court emphasized that the suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC is not to be granted lightly in cases of murder convictions, especially where the accused has been sentenced to life imprisonment. Relying on a consistent line of precedents, including:
the Court reiterated that post-conviction, the presumption of innocence disappears, and bail should only be considered if there is a gross error in the trial court’s findings or exceptional hardship, neither of which was present here.
The Court made it clear:
"Order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine" [Para 6]
“In a case involving conviction under Section 302 IPC, the consideration for suspension of sentence is altogether different. The High Court must exercise restraint and apply rigorous standards.” [Para 6.3]
In both appeals, the Supreme Court found that the High Court wrongly reappreciated the evidence, overstepped its jurisdiction at the suspension stage, and mischaracterized the role of the accused as mere ‘instigation’, when in fact they were armed, present, and part of the common object of unlawful assembly that led to the murder.
“Instigation Is No Lesser Role When Done While Armed and in Concert With Killers” – SC on Active Participation
In both judgments, Justice N.V. Anjaria, writing for the Bench, categorically rejected the High Court’s lenient interpretation of instigation:
“The High Court was swayed to observe that the role played by the respondents was of instigation only. It may be true that they were instigating, but it is also revealed from the record that both had with them a country-made pistol.” [Para 5.4]
“They were not passive instigators. They were part of the armed group inside the temple, issuing provocative commands to kill.” [Para 5.5]
The Court found sufficient eyewitness and medical evidence to support the conviction. It noted that PW1, a priest from a nearby temple, heard the gunshots and saw the accused fleeing. The post-mortem by Dr. Kumar Dev Pujan (PW6) matched the gunshot injury to the temple, which resulted in brain laceration and death due to haemorrhagic shock.
“The nature of participation of the convicts in the crime was grave. Their conduct cannot be discounted for seriousness merely because they did not pull the trigger.” [Para 9]
On Parity: “No Ground to Grant Bail Merely Because Co-Convict Was Granted Bail in Error”
The son, Rajesh Mahto, had sought bail on the ground that his father, Sheo Narayan Mahto, had already been granted bail by the High Court. The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning, noting that:
“Rajesh Mahto sails in the same boat as his father… The same facts, the same role, and the same legal misapplication apply to both.” [Para 6, Rajesh Mahto Judgment]
Accordingly, the Supreme Court also set aside the High Court’s bail order in Rajesh Mahto’s case, noting that the High Court merely copied the reasoning from the father’s case without independent assessment.
SC Directs Both Convicts to Surrender in 10 Days – Cancels Bail Orders for Grave Misapplication of Law
Holding that both father and son were rightly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and that their role in the murder inside a place of worship was active, armed, and intentional, the Supreme Court concluded that bail was wrongly granted in both cases. It directed the convicts to surrender within 10 days, and instructed the police to ensure their custody.
“For the foregoing reasons and discussion, impugned judgments of the High Court are hereby set aside. Both convicts are directed to surrender within ten days. The police authorities shall ensure that they are sent behind the bars within the above time permitted.” [Para 10 of both Judgments]
The appeals filed by the complainant were accordingly allowed, with the Apex Court making it clear that such serious offences demand judicial discipline, and that routine leniency in suspension of sentence could undermine the integrity of the justice system.
Date of Decision: December 18, 2025
