BOMBAY HIGH COURT
S.G. Mehare, J.
Ikbal Chandulal Shaikh and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Revision Application No.301 of 2022 with Criminal Application No.3373 of 2022 in Revn/301/2022 and Criminal Revision Application No.320 of 2022 with Criminal Application No.3644 of 2022 In Revn/320/2022 and Criminal Revision Application No.318 of 2022 with Criminal Application No.3633 of 2022 in Revn/318/2022
Decided on 3.5.2023
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 441 and 444 – Discharge of surety bond – Bail is a mechanism used to ensure that accused is present before Court and available for trial – Sometimes Court may release accused to secure his presence for trial on his own bond, and sometimes may ask for furnishing surety – No person can be forced to stand surety for accused – It is a voluntary act and a contract – Surety has discretion to apply to Magistrate to discharge bond either wholly or so far as to relate to accused – On such application being made, Magistrate shall issue his warrant of arrest directing that person so released be brought before him – Life of a surety bond is either till trial terminates or Court discharges surety – Continuing bail and surety after conviction would be illogical – Since standing surety for accused is voluntary, Court, after period of surety bond, cannot on its own continue surety on terminating trial. (Paras 24, 28 and 29)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 389 and 397 – Suspension of sentence – Whether in absence of a Rule regulating procedure framed by High Court for admission or listing Revision without surrender, High Court under revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. shall suspend sentence without surrender or arrest of accused for sending him to jail for execution of sentence, as a matter of course – Under revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, High Court may, at its discretion, exercise any powers under Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307 of Cr.P.C. – Section 401 is in aid to Section 397 of Cr.P.C. – Matter referred to Division Bench for authoritative pronouncement. (Paras 50 and 58)
Result: Reference answered.
ORDER
The applicants are seeking suspension of sentence under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (subordinate Appellate Court, for short).
2. The subordinate appellate Court cancelled the bail bonds of the accused and directed them to surrender before the trial Court for the execution of the sentence. Admittedly, soon after the decision of the appeal, the present applicants were not sent to jail under a conviction warrant, nor did the applicant surrender.
3. The learned counsel Mr. S.S. Panale and Mr. K.N. Shermale for the applicants have vehemently argued that Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure thus provides for suspension of sentence, and for suspension of sentence, the accused need not surrender. In other words, they have vehemently argued that for the suspension of the sentence before the High Court, surrender of the applicant is not sine qua non. The tone of their argument is once the Revision under Section 397, Cr.P.C. is preferred, the High Court shall suspend the sentence unless the High Court Rules prescribe the Procedure directing the accused to surrender before the sentence is suspended. To bolster their arguments, they relied on the judgments and orders of this Court passed in Criminal Application No.1238 of 2020 in Criminal Revision Application No.89 of 2020 [Popat Dattatraya Ajabe and Other vs. The State of Maharashtra] dated 3rd August, 2020 and Criminal Application No.2743 of 2019 in Criminal Revision Application No.232 of 2019 dated 12th June 2020. Relying strongly on these Judgments, they claimed that the applicant deserves suspension of sentence and bail till the conclusion of the revision petition.
4. The learned A.P.P. has strongly opposed the applications and raised the following points;
(i) Soon after the conviction, the subordinate appellate Court confirming the conviction shall take the convict into custody and send him to jail under a conviction warrant.
(ii) The Subordinate appellate Court has no jurisdiction to suspend the sentence and continue the bail.
(iii) The subordinate appellate Court has no power to direct the accused to surrender before the trial Court for the execution of the sentence.
(iv) The subordinate appellate Court shall not deliver the Judgment of conviction unless the presence of the accused has been secured before the Judgement is pronounced, except the personal attendance was exempted in an exceptional case.
(v) There was no uniformity in the judgments of subordinate appellate Courts as regards taking the convict into custody for the execution of the sentence soon after confirming the Judgment of conviction.
(vi) The subordinate appellate Courts do not cancel the bail bonds of the accused and discharge the surety after the conclusion of the appeal.
(vii) The convict in each case cannot claim the suspension of sentence under section 397 Cr.P.C. as a matter of course subject to exceptional circumstances.
(viii) The Revisional Court cannot grant bail to the petitioner unless he is behind bars either in the custody of the Magistrate or suffering the sentence.
5. He further argued that in the case at hand, the accused were present in the Court at the time of pronouncing the Judgment and exemption was not granted to them from appearance during the trial. Therefore, the learned subordinate appellate Court was to send them to jail for the execution of the sentence. There is no uniformity in the judgments and orders as regards sending the convict for the execution of the sentence, and different practises are followed throught the State, and that is a disparity. There must be uniformity in the application of the law. Everyone is equal before the law. Not applying the law uniformly is discrimination. Such an illegal practice shall be corrected. Some of the accused who appear honestly before the subordinate appellate Cou
Dilip S/o Ramchandra Umare vs. State of Maharashtra
State of Maharashtra vs. Dadamiya Babumiya Sheikh
Bihari Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar
Vivek Rai and Anr. vs. High Court of Jharkhand through Registrar General and Ors.
Rangaswami Textile Commissioner vs. Sagar Textile Mills (P) Ltd.
SupremeToday
A convicted individual must surrender before the court to maintain a revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as per the Allahabad High Court Rules.
The appellate court's power to suspend sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C is limited to exceptional circumstances; failure to comply with procedural rules results in denial of suspension.
The court held that the discretion to suspend a sentence post-conviction must be exercised judiciously, considering the nature of the offence and the likelihood of appeal success.
The court established that an accused who has not been required to execute bail bonds during trial cannot be denied suspension of sentence solely on that basis, provided they are not in custody and m....
The serving of half of the sentence does not automatically entitle a convict to suspension of sentence.
(1) Suspension of sentence and release on bail – Accused is presumed to be innocent till he is held guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction – Once accused is held guilty, presumption of innocence....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement for a convicted person to surrender after their conviction for a revision petition to be tenable, as per Rule 48 of the M....
A court should generally suspend a fixed-term sentence pending appeal unless exceptional circumstances indicate otherwise.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.