SURESHWAR THAKUR, SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Narinder Singh alias Minta – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.:- During pendency of the criminal appeal bearing No. CRA-S 2153-SB-2012, the convict/appellant filed the present application, whereby, he claimed relief in terms of Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. to the extent that, during the pendency of the criminal appeal (supra), the execution of the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him, thus be suspended. However, on the present application becoming listed before a learned Single Judge of this Court on 24.09.2016, through an order of even date becoming rendered thereons, therebys the learned Single Judge, till the making of an adjudication vis-a-vis the hereinafter extracted reference, thus proceeded to grant the supra benefit to the appellant, inasmuch as, the learned Single Judge temporarily suspended the execution of the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant.
2. Be that as it may, the order passed on 24.09.2016, enclosing therein the reference, whereto an answer is required to be meted, becomes ad verbatim extracted hereinafter:
At the very outset, Deputy Advocate General has relied upon parag
Dharam Pal V/s State of Haryana”
State (NCT of Delhi) Narcotics Control Bureau V/s Lokesh Chadha”
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 serving of half of the sentence does not automatically entitle a convict to suspension of sentence.
The stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be applied in cases where the convict/accused is unable to bring his case within the parameters of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.....
Suspension of sentence and grant of bail – A person who had undergone five years of pre-convict custody is entitled to be released on bail, on touchstone of Article 21 of Constitution of India.
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.
Prolonged custody and delayed trial violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial, allowing for a second bail application under the NDPS Act.
Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of NDPS Act, given imperative of Section 436A of Cr.P.C., which is applicable to offences under NDPS Act t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the appellate court to suspend the sentence pending appeal, the conditions for such suspension, and the practical reasons for del....
Bail – Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. does not exclude offences under NDPS Act – Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21.
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.