New Delhi, Dec. 28 -- The Supreme Court has made it clear that the long-settled principle of "presumption of innocence" applies only until an accused is tried and convicted, and does not survive once a trial court records a finding of guilt. Cautioning appellate courts against virtually re-trying cases at the stage of suspending sentence, the top court has held that re-appreciation of evidence or picking holes in the prosecution case is impermissible when a convicted person seeks bail pending appeal. A bench of justices Manmohan and NV Anjaria laid down the governing principles while setting aside orders of the Patna high court that had suspended the life sentences of a father and son convicted in a temple murder in Bihar's Rohtas district. The Supreme Court directed both convicts to surrender within ten days, holding that the high court had committed a "clear error" in granting them bail. "The presumption of innocence of the accused, which is a principle applied in criminal jurisprudence, holds good only until the accused is tried. Once the accused is convicted at the end of the trial, the presumption of innocence does not continue," the bench said in a judgment last week. Referring to a series of precedents and their rationale, the bench emphasised that suspension of sentence under section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is fundamentally different from grant of bail to an undertrial. Once a person is convicted, especially for a heinous offence, courts must exercise extreme restraint, it said. "Orders suspending sentence and granting bail should not be passed as a matter of routine," held the bench, stressing that in cases involving life imprisonment, suspension of sentence can be granted only in rare and exceptional circumstances, such as when there is a "gross and apparent error" in the trial court's judgment. Appellate courts, it said, must consider factors like the gravity of the offence, the manner of its commission, and the role played by the accused, without re-evaluating evidence as if hearing the appeal itself. The ruling is significant as a reaffirmation that once guilt is established after trial, liberty pending appeal is not the norm, particularly in cases involving violent and serious crimes. This judgment may resonate beyond the present case, including in the 2017 Unnao rape matter where the Delhi high court granted bail to former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar pending appeal, citing the period of incarceration already undergone and its view that an MLA was not a "public servant" under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act. Sengar is undergoing a life term in the case. In that matter, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has moved the Supreme Court challenging the high court's December 23 order, contending that the court adopted an unduly narrow and erroneous interpretation of the term "public servant" under the Pocso Act. The present case pertained to the killing of Krishna Behari Upadhyay, a village priest, inside the Mahavir temple on December 11, 2021. According to the prosecution, Upadhyay and his son had gone to the temple to light a lamp and perform aarti when a group of armed men entered, abused the priest, accused him of indulging in politics, and forcibly pushed their way inside the temple. The prosecution alleged that while one accused fired the fatal gunshot, both Sheo Narayan Mahto and his son Rajesh Mahto were armed with country-made pistols and actively instigated the killing by shouting that the priest should be shot. Upadhyay collapsed in a pool of blood inside the temple and was later declared dead at the hospital. A sessions court convicted both father and son under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment. They were also convicted under several other IPC provisions and the Arms Act. During the pendency of their appeals, the Patna high court suspended their sentences and granted them bail, reasoning that their role was limited to "instigation" and also pointing to a three-day delay in forwarding the FIR to the magistrate and the non-production of the original inquest report. The Supreme Court strongly disagreed. It held that the high court had relied on "illogical considerations" which had no bearing on the credibility of the prosecution case already established at trial. "Delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate's court or non-production of the original inquest report could not have guided the high court's application of mind at the stage of suspension of sentence," the bench said. The court also rejected the attempt to downplay the convicts' role by terming it mere instigation. It noted that both were armed, were present at the scene inside the temple, and fled together after the shooting. Witness testimony and medical evidence, the bench said, clearly supported the prosecution version of events. In a separate but connected judgment delivered the same day, the Supreme Court also cancelled the bail granted to Rajesh Mahto, noting that the high court had extended him the benefit solely because his father had already been released. Since the Supreme Court had already set aside the father's bail order, the son's case "sailed in the same boat," the bench said. The high court, it added, had mechanically adopted its earlier reasoning without independently examining whether suspension of sentence was justified....