Dismissing the petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 There is prima facie material to establish the involvement of the petitioners in activities violating the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The consequences of such violation are extrem..

Dismissing the petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 There is prima facie material to establish the involvement of the petitioners in activities violating the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The consequences of such violation are extremely serious. The minimum punishment on conviction is 10 years rigorousimprisonment. For more serious activities, the punishment can extend to imprisonment for life, and even to death penalty. Some of the accused are still absconding. Obviously, all the accused are financially well placed. Releasing them from jail at this juncture, when the prosecution has not even commenced to examine the main witnesses, could prove detrimental to the eventual outcome of the trial. Atleast till the culmination of the evidence of the material witnesses, it would not be proper to release the petitioners on bail. The impugned orders passed by the High Court are accordingly affirmed. [Para 15] 1.2 It would be just and appropriate to direct the prosecution to first examine the material witnesses. It shall be open to the petitioner (s) to move a fresh application for bail, after the examination of all the material witnesses.

The conduct of the petitioner in not reporting the matter to the petitioner and, on the other hand, burying the body of the victim in an attempt to shield himself of the offence, does enure to the benefit of the petitioner. Had it not been for the..

The conduct of the petitioner in not reporting the matter to the petitioner and, on the other hand, burying the body of the victim in an attempt to shield himself of the offence, does enure to the benefit of the petitioner. Had it not been for the insistence of PW-1, such evidence may have gone completely unnoticed. It is only on account of his insistence that the body of the victim was exhumed, and, thereafter, subjected to post mortem examination which, ultimately, revealed the fact that it was not simply a stomach pain which caused the death of the victim but the several injuries which had been caused to her. The very fact that he tried to hide the evidence, resulted in his conviction also under Section 201 IPC. In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the High Court as far as conviction and sentence is concerned. [Paras 3 and 4] 2.1. Life imprisonment is not to be interpreted as being imprisonment for the whole of a convict's natural life within the scope of Section 45 of IPC. On a conjoint reading of Sections 45 and 47 IPC and Sections 432, 433 and 433A Cr.P.C., it is well established that a convict awarded lifesentence has to undergo imprisonment for at least 14 years. While Sections 432 and 433 empowers the appropriate Government to suspend, remit or commute sentences, including a sentence of death and life imprisonment, a fetter has been imposed by the legislature on such powers by the introduction of Section 433A into Cr.P.C. by the Amending Act of 1978. [Paras 15 and 16] 2.2. By virtue of the non-obstante clause used in Section 433A Cr.P.C., the minimum term of imprisonmentin respect of an offence where death is one of the punishments provided by laws or where a death sentence has been commuted to life sentence, has been prescribed as 14 years. In the various decisions, "imprisonment for life" has been repeatedly held to mean imprisonment for the natural life term of a convict, though the actual period of imprisonment may stand reduced on account of remissions earned. But in no case, with the possible exception of the powers vested in the President under Article 72 of the Constitution and the power vested in the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution, even with remissions earned, can a sentence of imprisonment for life be reduced to below 14 years. It is thereafter left to the discretion of the concerned authorities to determine the actual length ofimprisonment having regard to the gravity and intensity of the offence. [Para 16] 2.3. In the facts of the present case, it is not a fit case where the petitioner should be released on completion of 14 years imprisonment. The petitioner's case for premature release may be taken up by the authorities concerned, after he completes 20 years imprisonment, including remissions earned.