The court emphasized the necessity of compelling reasons for bail suspension post-conviction, rejecting claims based on lack of bail misuse during trial as insufficient.

ORDER

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.

CRL.M.(BAIL) 8236/2020

1. An application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant.

2. The appellant stands convicted vide judgment dated 25.04.2019 for the offences under Sections 498A/304B I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Vide order dated 30.04.2019, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 02 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- (in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 06 months) for offence under Section 498A I.P.C., to undergo RI for a period of 10 years for offence under Section 304B I.P.C. and to undergo SI for a period of 01 year with fine of Rs.5,000/- (in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 03 months) for offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. All the sentences to run concurrently.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is strong case on merits, since the writing in the suicide note was never compared during the course of investigation. Also, during the course of trial, benefit of bail was extended to the petitioner vide order dated 08.04.2015 passed by this Court. The other contentions as raised in the appeal have also been raised challenging the impugned judgment on merits.

In support of the contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon Major Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 2015(5) SCC 201; Hira Lal & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, (2003)8 SCC 80; Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, (2008)1 SCC 202; Narayanmurthy v. State of Karnataka & Anr., (2008)16 SCC 512; Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2010)9 SCC 64; Appasaheb and Anr. V. State of Maharashtra, 2007(1) Crimes 110 (SC); S. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2184; Devinder @ Kala Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2012)10 SCC 763 and Budhiman Singh v. State of UP, Criminal Appeal No.987 of 2016 decided on 20 April, 2018.

4. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the application and submits that vide order dated 19.09.2019, the application for regular suspension of sentence was permitted to be withdrawn. It is also pointed out that appellant has not even undergone half of the sentence since after his conviction vide judgment dated 25.04.2019 he had been on interim bail since 15.07.2020 and was directed to surrender on 28.07.2022 vide order dated 26.07.2022 passed by this Court.

5. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised. At the outset, observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishori Lal v. Rupa, (2004)7 SCC 638: 2004 SCC (Cri) 2021 in para 4 to 6 may be noticed wherein the Supreme Court has indicated the factors that require to be considered by the courts while granting benefit under Section 389 in cases involving serious offences like murder, etc.

"4. 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 against. 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.

5. The appellate cour