The Supreme Court on Thursday stepped in firmly in a chilling temple murder case from Bihar, setting aside a Patna High Court order that had suspended a life sentence and granted bail to a convicted accused. Sitting in Court No. 2, the Bench made it clear that courts cannot treat suspension of sentence in murder cases as a routine exercise, especially after a full trial has ended in conviction.
Background
The case stems from a December 2021 incident at a village Mahavir temple in Rohtas district. According to the prosecution, Krishna Behari Upadhyay, a local priest, was attacked inside the temple while lighting a diya for evening aarti. A group of men allegedly stormed in, accusing him of being “too involved in politics.” Moments later, gunshots rang out. The priest collapsed inside the sanctum and was declared dead at the hospital.
Read also:- Supreme Court Overturns Telangana High Court Orders, Says Expired Driving Licences Break Eligibility for Police Driver Recruitment Posts
Among those convicted was Sheo Narayan Mahto, found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, meaning murder with common intent. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment along with convictions under other IPC provisions and the Arms Act.
However, during the pendency of his appeal, the Patna High Court suspended his sentence and granted bail, citing his alleged role as only that of an instigator and pointing to a three-day delay in forwarding the FIR to the magistrate, along with the absence of the original inquest report.
Read also:- Supreme Court quashes ESI demand against Carborandum Universal, says Section 45A can’t replace proper adjudication when records
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court was not impressed. The Bench, led by Justice N.V. Anjaria, noted that once a person stands convicted after trial, the presumption of innocence no longer survives. “Suspension of sentence in a case of life imprisonment cannot be granted as a matter of course,” the court observed.
Calling the High Court’s reasons “illogical,” the Bench said delays in sending the FIR or missing paperwork did not dilute the prosecution case, which had already been tested at trial. The judges also rejected the idea that carrying a firearm and shouting instigating slogans could be brushed aside lightly. “The role attributed to the respondent was grave,” the Bench noted, adding that he was present at the scene with a country-made pistol and fled after the shooting.
The court reiterated settled law that appellate courts should not reappreciate evidence while deciding applications under Section 389 of the CrPC. Bail after conviction for murder, the Bench said, is meant only for exceptional cases showing a glaring error in the trial court’s judgment.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores Arbitral Award Against BALCO, Says High Court Overstepped Limits
Decision
Allowing the appeal filed by the victim’s son, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order suspending the sentence. The court directed the accused to surrender within ten days and instructed police authorities to ensure that he is taken back into custody within that period.
Case Title: Rajesh Upadhayay vs The State of Bihar & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8736 of 2025
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (Cancellation of Bail / Suspension of Sentence)
Decision Date: 18 December 2025
