IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RITU BAHRI, KULDEEP TIWARI, JJ.
Sunil @ Sheenu – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM NO. 5434 of 2023 IN CRA-D-995 of 2019
Decided On : 04-07-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for suspension of sentence under section 389 cr.p.c. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel argues for suspension based on prior custody. (Para 3) |
| 3. court allows suspension of sentence based on previous case. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
Kuldeep Tiwari, J.
This is the first application, under Section 389 Cr.P.C., for suspension of sentence of the applicant-appellant, during the pendency of the appeal.
2. The applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 377 IPC read with section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the learned trial Court vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.8.2019.
3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that the applicant-appellant has undergone more than 5 years of his actual sentence. He further places reliance upon a judgment of this Court passed in the case of " Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana , 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 600".
4. The learned State counsel placed on record the custody certificate dated 3.7.2023 issued by the Deputy Superintendent, District Prison, Kaithal. A perusal of the custody certificate shows that the applicant-appellant has undergone actual custody period of 3 years, 10 months and 5 days after conviction and his total actual undergone period including his under trial comes out to be 5 years, 3 months and 1 day. As per the custody certificate, the applicant-appellant is also involved in one more case, however, in that case he has been acquitted.
5. We have perused the custody certificate, placed on record by the learned State counsel. As per the custody certificate, the applicant-appellant has undergone total sentence of more than 5 years and his case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment in Dharam Pal's case (Supra). The appeal pertains to the year of 2019 which is not likely to be heard in near future. Therefore, the present application is allowed, but without meaning to comment anything on merits of the appeal. The remaining sentence of the applicant-appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal and he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
The serving of half of the sentence does not automatically entitle a convict to suspension of sentence.
The power to grant bail is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, considering factors such as the nature of the accusations, severity of the punishment, and prima facie view of the involvem....
The court has the discretion to suspend the substantive sentence under Sec. 389 Cr.P.C. considering the totality of facts and circumstances, including the custody period and the anticipated delay in ....
Prolonged incarceration and the likelihood of delayed hearings are key factors for granting suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., even for repeat offenders, subject to strict condi....
The court determined that prolonged custody and lack of expeditious appeal trial warranted the suspension of the appellant's sentence.
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.