IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court must carefully consider relevant aspects and not pass orders for bail and suspension of sentence as a matter of routine, especially in cases involving gravity of the offence and the need for medical care.

JUDGMENT

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 389 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to release him on bail pending the disposal of the criminal appeal.

2. By the judgment dated 29.05.2019 in Special Trial (POCSO) Case No.3 of 2017, the learned Special Judge, Imphal East, convicted the petitioner-first accused for the offence under Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”), while acquitting the second accused under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act. On 01.6.2019, the petitioner-appellant was produced before the learned Special Judge, Imphal East and after hearing the petitioner and his counsel, the petitioner was sentenced to under to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. The learned Special Judge also ordered that the said fine amount if deposited, the same shall be given to the victim girl as compensation. That apart, the learned Special Judge also recommended for provision of victim compensation under Section 357A of Cr.P.C. to the victim. The learned Special Judge has also ordered the period which has already undergone by the petitioner-appellant in the judicial custody during the period of investigation as well as during the trial, if any, shall be set-off from the sentence awarded.

3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner, the petitioner has filed Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2019 before this Court. Pending appeal, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking to enlarge him on bail on medical grounds pending disposal of the appeal. According to the petitioner, he requires good medical care and attention for his ailment outside the jail and if he is released on bail, he will never jump the bail and he will abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court.

4. The respondent State filed objection stating that the trial Court after appreciating the evidences produced by the prosecution as well as the defence side, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment. It is stated that there is no immediate or urgent medical emergency that the petitioner-appellant is suffering from and his ailment, if any, can be taken care of by the medical staff of the jail.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was on bail during trial and he had fully cooperated in the trial by putting his personal appearance in almost all the hearing dates fixed by the trial Court and he never violated any terms and conditions of his releasing on bail during the whole proceedings of the trial. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is a diabetic patient and he requires constant medical care and attention for his ailment. Furthermore, his health condition has worsened day by day.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that detention of the petitioner during pendency of the appeal is a severe punishment to him and his family members and therefore prays for bail and that the petitioner undertakes to abide by the condition imposed by this Court in releasing him on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submitted that in view of the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, he cannot be released on bail pending disposal of the appeal. He would submit that the petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot seek bail and several other similar factors need to be considered by the Court while granting bail pending disposal of the appeal. In the case on hand, if the Court considers the nature of offence, the petitioner is not entitled to get the bail pending disposal of the appeal.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent State further submitted that a bare perusal of the medical papers annexed with the bail application reveals that the medical papers are stale and irrelevant papers as the same