Summary
The Supreme Court restored the appellant’s suspension of sentence and bail after the High Court cancelled them solely because counsel sought an adjournment. Bail under Section 389 could not be cancelled without reasonable opportunity to be heard. An unreasonable adjournment request could instead be refused and the criminal appeal addressed through the lawful alternatives in Bani Singh. The conviction appeal remained for the High Court’s decision.
Issues
- Whether appellate bail could be cancelled summarily because counsel sought an adjournment.
- How an appellate court may respond to an unreasonable refusal to argue the criminal appeal.
Provisions considered
- Section 389(1), second proviso; Section 439(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Cancellation may be sought by the prosecutor or initiated by the Court, but requires notice and reasonable opportunity to the accused; the summary cancellation was impermissible. (¶ 6–8)
Held
- The Court may itself call upon a convicted appellant to show cause against cancellation, but bail granted under Section 389(1) cannot be cancelled without reasonable opportunity to be heard. (¶ 6–7)
- The accused could not be penalised by summary cancellation merely for counsel’s adjournment request. Here no hearing on cancellation had been afforded. (¶¶ 4, 8)
- An appellate court may refuse an untenable adjournment and adopt the options in Bani Singh, including appointing counsel to represent the appellant or proceeding lawfully to decide the appeal on merits. (¶¶ 5, 11)
- Where only suspension of sentence is listed, counsel is not expected to be ready to argue the entire appeal; refusal on that sole basis is improper. (¶ 9)
Result
Appeal allowed; cancellation order quashed and order of 12 January 2018 suspending sentence and granting bail restored. High Court remained free to deal lawfully with unwarranted adjournments while deciding the pending appeal.