Can't deny term suspension if other cases pending: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, January 21

In a significant judgment liable to change the way sentence awarded to “habitual offenders” with prior convictions is suspended, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that relief cannot be denied merely because of the pendency of other cases or multiple convictions.

Will put Accused in vicious loop

Strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of the pendency of other cases will put the accused in a vicious loop of never being granted bail. This is because the bail in each case would be denied due to the pendency of another case. Punjab & Haryana HC

With this, the High Court has made a departure of sorts from the much-relied-upon judgment in the “Daler Singh’s case”, which says prior convictions would disentitle an applicant for the grant of bail.

The Bench was hearing a plea by a convict for the suspension of sentence in a drugs case. It was contended that the applicant had undergone more than eight years and 11 months of substantive sentence of 12 years. The matter was, as such, required to be considered for the suspension of the remaining sentence as his pending appeal was not likely to be heard in the near future due to the pandemic. Opposing the plea, the State counsel submitted that prior convictions would disentitle the applicant for the grant of bail in view of the “Daler Singh’s case”.

Referring to a plethora of judgments, the Bench asserted that its perusal would show right under Article 21 of the Constitution included the right to a speedy trial and expeditious disposal of a convict’s appeal. A delayed trial/disposal of an appeal would entitle the accused/convict to the suspension of sentence, depending on facts and circumstances of each case.

Justice Bedi said: “If the pendency of other FIRs is the only consideration for the denial of bail, whenever a convict/undertrial applies for bail, the same would be denied simply looking at the pendency of another case.”

Justice Bedi said it would be violative of the right to speedy trial/disposal of an appeal as recognised under Article 21, as the accused would never be granted bail in any case leading to indefinite periods of incarceration, assuming that the appeal was not heard within reasonable time.