2004 JTR(SC) 742
2004 20 AIC 8 ; 2004 4 AICLR 36 ; 2004 AIR(SC) 3936 ; 2004 AIR(SCW) 4266 ; 2004 2 ALD(Cri)(SC) 756 ; 2004 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 2545 ; 2004 4 BBCJ(SC) 59 ; 2004 3 CCR(SC) 37 ; 2004 4 CriCC 661 ; 2004 CriLR 681 ; 2004 3 Crimes(SC) 208 ; 2004 CrLJ 3840 ; 2004 4 CTC 140 ; 2004 3 EastCrC(SC) 109 ; 2004 3 GLH 787 ; 2004 ILR(Kar) 3971 ; 2004 2 JCC 1145 ; 2004 3 JLJR(SC) 281 ; 2004 6 JT 168 ; 2004 6 JT 6 ; 2004 2 KLJ 868 ; 2004 3 KLT(SN) 7 ; 2004 4 PLJR(SC) 21 ; 2004 3 RCR(Cri) 829 ; 2004 RLR 461 ; 2004 6 Scale 274 ; 2004 6 Scale 275 ; 2004 6 SCC 175 ; 2004 SCC(Cri) 1757 ; 2004 SCR 132 ; 2004 2 WLC 444 ; 2004 KHC 1267 ; 2004 5 Supreme 644
2004(5) Supreme 644
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Arijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker, JJ.
State of Haryana -Appellant
versus
Hasmat -Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 715-716 of 2004
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1715-1716/2004)
Decided on 26-7-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sunder Khatri and Vinay Kumar Garg, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Zafar Sadique and Balraj Dewan, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
In cases involving conviction u/s 302 IPC, it is only in exceptional cases that benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted.
Act Referred :CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.389
(A) Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governs the suspension of execution of sentence and the release of an appellant on bail during the pendency of an appeal. This case involves a criminal appeal filed under Section 389 by a convicted accused-murder, where the High Court grappled with the interplay between parole, the gravity of the offence, and the principles governing the grant of bail post-conviction. The statutory scheme mandates a rigorous, objective assessment, requiring the Appellate Court to record written reasons, emphasizing that suspension of sentence and bail cannot be treated as a matter of routine, especially in serious offences.
(B) The core legal principles underscore that bail is distinct from suspension of sentence, and the latter is permissible only in exceptional cases. The Court must conduct a value-based assessment weighing the nature of the accusation, the gravity of the offence, the conduct of the accused, and the desirability of release. Mere compliance with parole does not, by itself, justify interfering with the sentence; the Court must evaluate specific, legally relevant factors on the merits.
Facts of the case:
The respondent was convicted by the trial court for offences including murder under Sections 302, 307, and 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, attracting a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine. Following conviction, an appeal was filed under Section 389 of the CrPC, seeking suspension of the sentence and bail. The High Court granted bail primarily on the ground that the respondent had not misused liberty during parole, without analyzing the broader legal parameters or the gravity of the crime.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, holding that the grant of bail and suspension of sentence was unsustainable. The Court found that the High Court failed to consider the essential ingredients of Section 389, particularly the necessity of recording reasons and the requirement to evaluate the case on its merits. It emphasized that in cases involving murder, the benefit of suspension is reserved for exceptional circumstances and cannot be predicated solely on the absence of misuse of parole.
Issues:
Whether the High Court correctly applied the principles governing suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 of the CrPC, particularly in a murder case, by treating the absence of parole misuse as a sufficient ground for its order.
Ratio Decidendi:
The appellate court must objectively assess the case, record written reasons, and consider the nature of the offence, the gravity of the crime, and the conduct of the accused. In serious offences like murder, suspension of sentence and bail are exceptional remedies; the mere fact of parole compliance does not create a legal right to bail and does not discharge the appellate court's duty to perform a merits-based review.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The case is remanded for a fresh consideration in accordance with the law, with no opinion expressed on the future application.
(A) Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governs the suspension of execution of sentence and the release of an appellant on bail during the pendency of an appeal. This case involves a criminal appeal filed under Section 389 by a convicted accused-murder, where the High Court grappled with the interplay between parole, the gravity of the offence, and the principles governing the grant of bail post-conviction. The statutory scheme mandates a rigorous, objective assessment, requiring the Appellate Court to record written reasons, emphasizing that suspension of sentence and bail cannot be treated as a matter of routine, especially in serious offences.
(B) The core legal principles underscore that bail is distinct from suspension of sentence, and the latter is permissible only in exceptional cases. The Court must conduct a value-based assessment weighing the nature of the accusation, the gravity of the offence, the conduct of the accused, and the desirability of release. Mere compliance with parole does not, by itself, justify interfering with the sentence; the Court must evaluate specific, legally relevant factors on the merits.
Facts of the case:
The respondent was convicted by the trial court for offences including murder under Sections 302, 307, and 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, attracting a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine. Following conviction, an appeal was filed under Section 389 of the CrPC, seeking suspension of the sentence and bail. The High Court granted bail primarily on the ground that the respondent had not misused liberty during parole, without analyzing the broader legal parameters or the gravity of the crime.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, holding that the grant of bail and suspension of sentence was unsustainable. The Court found that the High Court failed to consider the essential ingredients of Section 389, particularly the necessity of recording reasons and the requirement to evaluate the case on its merits. It emphasized that in cases involving murder, the benefit of suspension is reserved for exceptional circumstances and cannot be predicated solely on the absence of misuse of parole.
Issues:
Whether the High Court correctly applied the principles governing suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 of the CrPC, particularly in a murder case, by treating the absence of parole misuse as a sufficient ground for its order.
Ratio Decidendi:
The appellate court must objectively assess the case, record written reasons, and consider the nature of the offence, the gravity of the crime, and the conduct of the accused. In serious offences like murder, suspension of sentence and bail are exceptional remedies; the mere fact of parole compliance does not create a legal right to bail and does not discharge the appellate court's duty to perform a merits-based review.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The case is remanded for a fresh consideration in accordance with the law, with no opinion expressed on the future application.
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.
2. The State of Haryana calls in question grant of bail to accused Hasmat (respondent herein) by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Criminal miscellaneous No. 14009/2003 was filed in Criminal Appeal No. 100/2002 purportedly under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code ) with a prayer that the substantive sentence imposed i.e. imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- should be suspended and the respondent be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal filed. The accused-respondent along with twenty two others faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307, 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the Arms Act ). Accused-respondent along with some others was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 148 read with Section 149 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay the fine as aforenoted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
3. The High Court by the impugned order granted bail primarily on the ground that after the conviction the accused respondent had been granted parole on three occasions and there was no allegation of any misuse of liberty during the period of parole.
4. According to learned counsel for the appellant-State it was the accused respondent who was the key figure in a gruesome murder and there was direct and unimpeachable evidence establishing the commission of the crime by him. The trial Court by a detailed and reasoned judgment held him guilty, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Merely because parole was granted, the same cannot be a ground for suspension of the sentence and grant of bail in terms of Section 389 of the Code.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondent submitted that there was no allegation of misuse of liberty during the parole period. The High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused respondent. It is not a fit case which calls for interference in terms of Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution ).
6. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of execution of sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail. There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the Appellate Court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed. If he is in confinement, the said Court can direct that he be released on bail or on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine.
7. The Appellate Court is duty bound to objectively assess the matter and to record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. In the instant case, the only factor which seems to have weighed with the High Court for directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is the absence of allegation of misuse of liberty during the period the accused-respondent was granted parole.
8. The learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon by a judgment dated 24.10.2001 had found the accused respondent guilty. Criminal Appeal No. 100DB/2002 was filed by the respondent. The fact that during the pendency of the appeal the accused respondent was on parole goes to show that initially the accused respondent was not given the benefit of suspension of execution of sentence. The mere fact that during the period of parole the accused has not misused the liberties does not per se warrant suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. What really was necessary to be considered by the High Court was whether reasons existed to suspend the execution of sentence and thereafter grant bail. The High Court does not seem to have kept the correct principle in view.
9. In Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and others (2002 (9) SCC 364) and Ramji Pasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and another (2002 (9) SCC 366), it was held by this Court that in cases involving conviction under Section 302 IPC, it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted. The impugned order of the High Court does not meet the requirement. In Vijay Kumar s case (supra) it was held that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, the Court should consider the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they have been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder. These aspects have not been considered by the High Court, while passing the impugned order.
10. The order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. We, therefore, set aside the order. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent stated that a fresh application shall be moved. In cases it is done, the High Court, it goes without saying, shall consider the matter in accordance with law, in its proper perspective. We express no opinion in that regard.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently urged that though application for suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail was filed containing several reasons and not only absence of mis-use of liberties during the period of parole, the High Court has not touched those aspects.
12. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
Appeal allowed.
***************
00038
00039