Summary
A convicted appellant sought suspension of concurrent sentences whose maximum term was three years. The Court held that the likely delay before his appeal was heard, and the risk of serving the sentence before meaningful appellate relief, furnished compelling reasons for suspension on these facts. No adverse antecedents or jail conduct justified refusal. It suspended the remaining sentence during the High Court appeal and ordered bail on trial-court conditions.
Issues
- Whether the short fixed sentence and likely delay in hearing the appeal furnished compelling reasons for post-conviction bail.
Provisions considered
- Section 389(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The maximum three-year term and likely appellate delay justified suspension of the remaining sentence on the particular facts. (¶ Order, reasons following the quotation from Preet Pal Singh)
Held
- The observations in Preet Pal Singh about compelling reasons for post-conviction bail had to be read in their factual context, which included a life sentence. They did not require refusal here despite the maximum fixed term of three years. (¶ Order, discussion of Preet Pal Singh)
- The High Court directed hearing in due course without addressing the short maximum sentence or likely delay. Serving the sentence before a possible acquittal or modification would cause practically irreparable injury; these circumstances themselves furnished compelling reasons for suspension here. (¶ Order, concluding reasons)
- The Court found no other adverse consideration, such as prior criminal antecedents or blameworthy jail conduct, to deny relief. Suspension concerned execution of the remaining sentence pending appeal, without setting aside the conviction. (¶ Order, concluding reasons and directions)
Result
Appeal allowed; execution of the remaining sentence suspended during the appeal before the High Court. The appellant was to be released on bail subject to terms and conditions imposed by the trial court.