'Fixed Term Sentences Be Suspended Ordinarily' : Supreme Court Grants Bail To 70-Year-Old Disabled Man; Chides HC For Casual Approach

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 3) expressed displeasure with the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order for adopting a casual approach in refusing to consider the plea of a 70-year-old ailing man for the suspension of the sentence. While granting bail to the petitioner, the Supreme Court said that the plea for a suspension of sentence should be considered liberally in cases of fixed term sentences, unless an exceptional circumstance arises.

"The law is well settled that if the sentence imposed by the trial court is for a fixed term, then ordinarily the appellate court should consider the plea for suspension of sentence liberally, unless there are any exceptional circumstances emerging from the record of the case to decline such relief. There is nothing observed by the High Court in its impugned order as to why the plea for suspension of sentence deserved to be declined. The High Court has not said anything about any exceptional circumstances.", the Vacation Bench Comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan said.

The Court was hearing the plea of the seventy-year-old man whose vision is almost 90% impaired. The petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has served two years of sentence out of the total four years of rigorous sentence imposed on him. He preferred a plea for suspension of sentence pending the appeal against the conviction. However, the plea for suspension of sentence was rejected by the High Court without providing a reason as to why the plea for suspension of sentence deserved to be declined.

Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already served two years of the sentence imposed on him, the Court said that the High Court had passed a stereotyped order without any application of mind as it has not said anything about any exceptional circumstances.

"We take notice of the fact that stereotype orders are passed by the High Courts without any application of mind. The High Court should have realized that the petitioner is seventy years of age and out of four years of maximum sentence imposed, has already been undergone two years' of sentence. The petitioner is virtually blind. There is nothing on record to indicate that his release on bail pending appeal would thwart the course of justice. The High Court could have easily considered the plea for suspension of sentence in the first instance itself. Such casual approach of the High Court has led to the filing of this Special Leave Petition before the highest court of the country.", the Court said.

The Court said that if the sentence imposed by the trial court is for a fixed term, then ordinarily the appellate court should consider the plea for suspension of sentence liberally unless any exceptional circumstances are emerging from the record of the case to decline such relief.

Based on the above premise, the Court issued notice to the respondent/State and granted bail to the petitioner subject to the conditions imposed by the Trial Court.

Mr. Anup Kumar, AOR Mrs. Neha Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Shivam Kumar, Adv. Ms. Pragya Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Shruti Singh, Adv. appeared for the petitioner.

Case Title: BHERULAL VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 437

Click here to read/download the order