Bail pending appeal after conviction demands clear reasons and careful scrutiny of offence gravity and State objections.

After conviction for serious offences, bail pending appeal requires greater caution because the presumption of innocence no longer operates with the same force. The Court noted that bail orders must clearly disclose reasons and show proper consideration of the seriousness of the offence, the conduct of the accused, and the State's opposition. As the impugned orders did not reflect such consideration and were unclear on what constituted submissions and reasons, they were held unsustainable. The bail orders were quashed, and the convicted accused were directed to surrender forthwith to serve the sentence imposed by the trial court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail pending appeal to convicted accused persons and whether the bail orders were sustainable in the absence of clear reasons and proper consideration of the seriousness of the offence, the conduct of the accused, and the State's opposition.

Analysis: The convicted accused had been sentenced to life imprisonment for offences under the Penal Code. The Court noted that once conviction has been recorded, the normal presumption of innocence no longer operates with the same force, and a court considering bail pending appeal must act with greater caution in serious offences. The impugned orders were found to lack clarity as to what constituted submissions and what constituted reasons, and they did not reflect consideration of the detailed opposition filed by the State. The Court also noted the alleged attempts to derail the investigation, the conviction of the investigating officer and doctor for related offences, and the threats alleged to have been given to prosecution witnesses during trial.

Conclusion: The bail orders were held unsustainable and were quashed and set aside. The convicted accused were directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence imposed by the trial court.

---