Delhi High Court - Orders
Sonu Verma vs State ( Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 5 September, 2022
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 36/2022
SONU VERMA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Archit Upadhyay, Adv.
(DHCLSC)
versus
STATE ( GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, Ld. APP
SI Shubham Saini, PS Pandav Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 05.09.2022 CRL.M.(BAIL) 83/2022-SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE
1. This is an application filed seeking suspension of sentence and release of the appellant during the pendency of the appeal.
2. As per the judgment of conviction dated 30.04.2021, the appellant was convicted under Section 304(1)/392/411/34 IPC and vide order of sentence dated 01.11.2021 sentenced to varying periods of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of 5 months.
3. Admittedly, the fine has not been paid.
4. As per the Nominal Roll dated 24.12.2021, the applicant in December, 2021 had an unexpired portion of 5 years 8 months and 2 days. A period of more than 8 months has elapsed and therefore, the unexpired portion of sentence would be less than 5 years, which implies that the appellant has undergone more than 50 % of his sentence. However, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:07.09.2022 11:24:48 appellant has not paid any fine, and hence, the sentence would be enhanced by 5 months, 3 months and 1 month making a total unexpired portion of 5 years and 9 months.
5. In the present case, the applicant for suspension shows that the appellant has an old aged mother, one younger brother who is suffering from paralysis attack, one minor sister aged around 13 years and one married sister who is living in his matrimonial home.
6. It is further stated that the appellant is an unmarried person and belongs to a poor strata of society. His family members are at the poor strata of the society.
7. I am of the view that the appellant has already undergone 4 years 3 months and 25 days and there is no remission and the overall conduct of the appellant is also satisfactory.
8. In „Kashmira Singh‟ [1977 (4) SCC 291], it is held:-
"2. The appellant contends in this application that pending the hearing of the appeal he should be released on bail. Now, the practice in this Court as also in many of the High Courts has been not to release on bail a person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The question is whether this practice should be departed from and if so, in what circumstances. It is obvious that no practice howsoever sanctified by usage and hallowed by time can be allowed to prevail if it operates to cause injustice. Every practice of the Court must find its ultimate justification in the interest of justice. The practice not to release on bail a person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment was evolved in the High Courts and in this Court on the basis that once a person has been found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, he should not be let loose, so long as his conviction and sentence Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:07.09.2022 11:24:48 are not set aside, but the underlying postulate of this practice was that the appeal of such person would be disposed of within a measureable distance of time. so that if he is ultimately found to be innocent, he would not have to remain in jail for an unduly long period. The rationale of this practice can have no application where the Court is not in a position to dispose of the appeal for five or six years. It would indeed be a travesty of justice to keep a person in jail for a period of five or six years for an offence which is ultimately found not to have been committed by him. Can the Court ever compensate him for his incarceration which is found to be unjustified? Would it be just at all for the Court to tell a person: "We have admitted your appeal because we think you have a prima facie case, but unfortunately we have no time to hear your appeal for quite a few years and, therefore, until we hear your appeal, you must remain in jail, even though you may be innocent?" What confidence would such administration of justice inspire in the mind of the public? It may quite conceivably happen, and it has in fact happened in a few cases in this Court, that a person may serve out his full term of imprisonment before his appeal is taken up for hearing. Would a judge not be overwhelmed with a feeling of contrition while acquitting such a person after hearing the appeal? Would it not be an affront to his sense of justice? Of what avail would the acquittal be to such a person who has already served out his term of imprisonment or at any rate a major part of it? It is, therefore, absolutely essential that the practice which this Court has been following in the past must be reconsidered and so long as this Court is not in a position to hear the appeal of an accused within a reasonable period of time, the Court should ordinarily, unless there are cogent grounds for acting otherwise, release the accused on bail in cases where special leave has been granted to the accused to appeal against his conviction and sentence."Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:07.09.2022 11:24:48
9. In „Sonadhar vs. State of Chattisgarh‟ [2021 SCC OnLine SC 3182] as well as „Saudan Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh‟ [2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259], the Supreme Court has observed that bail applications for suspension of sentence may be considered once the appellant has undergone 50% of their sentence prescribed.
10. In Saudan Singh (supra) the Supreme Court held the following:
"Para 7. We may note that there may be even convicts in custody in cases other than life sentence cases and in those cases again the broad parameter of 50 per cent of the actual sentence undergone can be the basis for grant of bail."
11. I am of the view that the appeal in the present case is of the year 2022 and there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future. If the sentence of the appellant is not suspended, it could very well be that he would have undergone the entire sentence without his appeal having been heard.
12. In the present case as already indicated, the applicant belongs to a poor strata of society. The appellant‟s family members are unable to deposit the fine. On an account of non-payment of fine, the sentence of the appellant was enhanced to a further period of 9 months. Otherwise, the appellant would have undergone more than 50% of his sentence.
13. For the aforesaid reasons and relying on „Kashmira Singh‟ [1977 (4) SCC 291] and „Saudan Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh‟ [2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259], I am of the view that the sentence of the appellant needs to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal on the following terms and conditions:-
i. The appellant shall furnish a personal bond with one local surety in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the Jail Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:07.09.2022 11:24:48 Superintendent;
ii. The appellant shall provide his mobile number to the Investigating Officer (IO) concerned, which shall be kept in working condition at all times. The appellant shall not switch off, or change the same without prior intimation to the IO concerned, during the period of suspension of sentence;
iii. The appellant will furnish his permanent address to the IO and in case he changes his address, he will inform the IO concerned and this Court also;
iv. The appellant shall appear before the Court as and when the appeal is taken up for hearing;
v. The appellant shall not leave the country and if the appellant has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the Jail Superintendent; vi. The appellant shall not indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in pending cases, if any.
14. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
JASMEET SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 5, 2022 / (MS) Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:07.09.2022 11:24:48