Back
2017 Supreme(J&K) 195
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Sanjay Kumar Gupta, JJ.
Jeet Raj – Appellant
Vs.
State – Respondent
MP No.01 OF 2017, IN Cr. Appeal No.53 OF 2014
Decided On : 24-07-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. O. P. Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Padha, GA.
An accused who has already undergone half of the total sentence awarded is entitled to be released on bail.
Headnote:
Suspension of Sentence - Bail - The court suspended the sentence and granted bail to the applicant/appellant based on the principle that an accused who has already undergone half of the total sentence awarded is entitled to be released on bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought suspension of the judgment and release on bail, stating that he had already undergone almost half of the sentence awarded and belonged to a poor family facing hardship.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant had undergone six years of the sentence, which was half of the total sentence awarded, and considered the settled principle of law that entitled the accused to be released on bail under such circumstances.
Issues: The issues involved the suspension of the sentence and release on bail based on the duration of the sentence served and the applicant's circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal provisions and precedents, including the principle that under trial prisoners who have completed half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offense for which they were arrested should not be detained in jail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application, suspended the sentence awarded by the trial court, and granted bail to the applicant/appellant with specific conditions.
Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.
1. Through the medium of instant application, applicant/appellant-Jeet Raj seeks suspension of the judgment, conviction/sentence dated 11.07.2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in case FIR No.19/2003 for offence under Section 376 RPC and prays for release of applicant on bail, inter alia, on the ground that appeal is pending in this Court since September, 2014. The trial Court has awarded sentence of 12 years. The applicant was arrested on 23.03.2003 and was released on bail on 27.01.2005. During trial, he remained under custody/jail for about 1 year 10 months and 12 days. Subsequently, during the trial he was taken in custody on 13.05.2013. Since then he is under custody. Thus, he has undergone the sentence of more than 5 years and 11 months. The applicant has undergone almost half of the sentence awarded to him. That the applicant belongs to a poor family consisting of four members, who are facing starvation. Besides, father of the applicant is suffering from paralytic stroke and bed ridden.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submitted that in view of the pendency of cases of similar nature, there is no possibility of consideration of the instant appeal for final hearing in near future. It is further submitted that there is a settled principle of law that where the accused has already undergone half of the total sentence awarded, he is entitled to be released on bail.
3. On the basis of submissions made above, learned counsel seeks suspension of sentence and release of applicant on bail.
4. Despite opportunity, State has not filed objections to the instant application.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as learned State Counsel and considered the law on the subject.
6. From the perusal of the file, it also reveals that the appellant-accused remained in custody from 23.03.2003 to 27.01.2005 and still is in custody since 13.05.2013. In this way, accused has undergone six years of sentence awarded by trial court till now, which is half of total sentence awarded by trial court.
7. In case titled ‘Mithu Pasi and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand’ 2016 (8) Scale 654, it is held as under:-
“Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 389 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 326 Sentence- Suspension of- Appellant inflicted injury with knife on victim- Already undergone 6 years imprisonment without remission out of ten years awarded- Just and proper to direct suspension of remaining sentence.”
8. In case titled ‘Thana Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics’ 2013 AIR (SCW) 800, it is held as under:-
“Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985- Criminal Procedure- Bail in NDPS case- Delay in Trial- Appellant was languishing in jail for more than 12 years, awaiting, even the commencement of his trial for an offence under NDPS Act and he consistently denied bail, as noted, even by the High Court- Court took serious note of the fact that the maximum punishment for the offence in question is incarceration for 20 years, hence the undertrial remained in detention for a period exceeding ½ of the maximum period of imprisonment, in the light of Section 37 of the Act, stated to be against the express pronouncement of it in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Under trial Prisoners v. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 731- Court not only granted the bail deserved by appellant- Thana Singh, but in a view to ensure that in future no under trial under NDPS Act is made to suffer such an anguish and plight, issued several directions.”
9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case ‘Bhim Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.’ 2016 (1) SCC (Cri) 663, it is held that ‘under trial prisoners who have completed half of maximum sentence prescribed for offence for which they were arrested not be detained in jail’.
10. Appeal is a continuation of trial. Appeal is pending since 2014. There are many such appeals pending, which are prior to this appeal, for arguments. So there is less chance
