The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Allahabad High Court order for rejecting a plea to suspend the sentence of a man convicted under the POCSO Act and other provisions. The appellant had been sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment for offences under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, Section 354 IPC, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
While noting that the appellant’s appeal against the conviction is pending since 2024 with no likelihood of early disposal, the Court emphasized that such fixed-term convictions should be treated differently from life sentences when considering suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC. Relying on the precedent in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421, and other decisions, the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan observed that denial of bail in such cases defeats the purpose of appeal and results in injustice due to prolonged incarceration.
The Supreme Court faulted the High Court for merely reiterating the prosecution’s case and evidence instead of applying the established legal principles for sentence suspension. It held that unless there are compelling reasons against it, bail in fixed-term convictions should be considered favorably to prevent the appeal from becoming infructuous due to time lapse.
The Court noted at para 20
“The High Court should have been mindful of the fact that the appeal is of the year 2024. Appeal of 2024 is not likely to be taken up in near future. Ultimately, if 4 years are to elapse in jail the same would render the appeal infructuous and that would be travesty of justice.”
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration and directed the High Court to decide the bail plea within 15 days, keeping in mind the limited nature of the sentence and the absence of exceptional circumstances barring release.