ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent-State.

3. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The maximum substantive sentence is of 4 years. An appeal against conviction was preferred by the appellant before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at jabalpur. In the appeal, an application was made under Section 430(1) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "the BNSS") for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

4. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. The impugned order records that a similar application made earlier by the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn on 27^th August, 2024. While rejecting the application by the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has observed thus:

“Accordingly, application is dismissed.

Second application has been filed on14.10.2024 i.e. just less than two months of rejection of first application. Accordingly, it is clarified that appellant may revive his prayer for suspension of sentence after undergoing half of the jail sentence including remission.”(underline supplied)

5. Considering the huge pendency of the Criminal Appeals in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, it is obvious that the appeal preferred by the appellant of the year 2024 will not be heard till the appellant undergoes the entire sentence. We are surprised to note that the High Court has invented a proposition of law which has no basis. The proposition of law is that the suspension of sentence can be sought after undergoing half of the jail sentence including remission. We make it clear that no such proposition of law exists.

6. This Court has repeatedly held that in a case where there is a fixed term sentence, pending an appeal against conviction, a liberal approach should be adopted while deciding the prayer for suspension of sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances. This proposition can be found in paragraph 3 of the decision of this Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat , (1999) 4 SCC 421 . Paragraph 3 reads thus:

“3. When a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of course, if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of a limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when a motion for expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously the appellate court must bestow special concern in the matter of suspending the sentence so as to make the appeal right, meaningful and effective. Of course, appellate courts can impose similar conditions when bail is granted.”(underline supplied)

7. We must record here that in a case like this, a litigant should not be forced to approach this Court. The High Court ought to have applied law as it stands and kept in mind the fact that there is a huge pendency of appeals against conviction in the High Court. Now, the appellant has already undergone sentence of more than 9 months.

8. We set aside the impugned order dated 21^st October, 2024 and allow the application made by the appellant for grant of suspension of sentence and bail pen