Gujarat High Court
Salim @ Bhurio Mohammed Hanif Qureshi vs State Of Gujarat on 17 October, 2000
Author: D.P.Buch
Bench: D.P.Buch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No 817 of 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------
SALIM @ BHURIO MOHAMMED HANIF QURESHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
MR MM TIRMIZI for Petitioner
MR K G Sheth, APP for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE D.P.BUCH
Date of Order: 17/10/2000
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned APP Mr K G Sheth for respondent No.1. The above named appellant has been sentenced by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Court No.5 in Sessions Case no.155/99 and Sessions Case No.96 of 2000 on 6.7.2000 for offence punishable under section 304 of IPC. He has been sentenced to suffer RI for five years. In default, he has further been directed to suffer RI for one month. The appellant prays that he may be released on bail pending hearing and disposal of the appeal.
2.Learned Advocate for the appellant makes a statement that the appellant has never applied for bail and he remained in jail all throughout. It is his case that the appellant has been sentenced to suffer RI for five years and he is in jail since little over two years and, therefore, almost, half the portion of the total punishment has been undergone and, therefore, he prays that as it may not be possible to hear and dispose of the appeal very soon, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. On this point, he refers to decision in criminal misc.application no.7752/99 in Criminal Appeal No.48/98 in which this court, in judgment dated 23.12.1999, has relied upon a decision in the case of BHAGWAN RAM SHINDE GOSAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT in (1994) 4 SCC 421. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sat Feb 06 02:36:18 IST 2016 reproduced in para 5 of the said judgment which may be reproduced for ready reference as follows:
"When a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless these are exceptional circumstances. Of course, if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence, it is a difference matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment, the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a difference approach. But, if for any reason, the sentence of a limited duration cannot be suspended, every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when a motion for expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise, the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously, the appellate court must bestow special concern in the matter of suspending the sentence, so as to make the appeal right meaningful and effective. Of course, appellate courts can impose similar conditions when bail is granted."
It is clear that in the present case also the present appellant has been sentenced to suffer RI for 5 years. Even if efforts are made, it may not be possible to hear the appeal very soon. In view of the above circumstances, the appellant is required to be enlarged on bail pending hearing and disposal of the appeal.
3.In the result, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety in a sum of Rs.10,000/- with personal recognition in the like amount before the trial court to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellant is further directed to remain present before the trial court on the first working day of every month pending hearing and disposal of the appeal. On furnishing the P.R. and solvent surety as said above, the order of sentence shall remain in suspension on further condition that the appellant deposits the fine amount before the trial court. The appellant shall not enter the City of Ahmedabad for one year from today. Parties are at liberty to apply in case of difficulty.
HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sat Feb 06 02:36:18 IST 2016 17.10.2000[D P Buch, J.] msp.
HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sat Feb 06 02:36:18 IST 2016