The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to interfere with a Gujarat High Court order suspending the sentence of a former Superintendent of Police convicted in the alleged Bitcoin extortion case, while clarifying that the relief granted would not operate as a precedent for similarly placed co-accused.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora opposed the suspension of sentence, contending that the officer was a principal accused in the case and had undergone only about one-and-a-half years of imprisonment following conviction. It was argued that evidence on record indicated that the officer was among the beneficiaries of the alleged Bitcoin transactions and that subordinate police personnel implicated in the case had acted under his command.
The complainant further expressed apprehension that officers who secured suspension of sentence were being reinstated into service, raising concerns about his safety and the fairness of the process.
“
“My apprehension is this… if this SP goes back in service, I will be in a huge difficulty. After these people having been involved in my abduction and kidnapping and extorting 200 Bitcoins from me, if they come back and are reinstated, I have a grave and serious apprehension,”it was submitted.
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana, however, observed that the matter involved competing equities and noted that the complainant’s concerns regarding reinstatement could be addressed independently if such action were taken by the authorities.
“
“The problem is that you are on conduct and character also. We have to balance the equity,”
The Court added that any decision to reinstate the officer would give rise to a separate cause of action that could be challenged in accordance with law. Addressing the apprehension that the suspension order may be relied upon by other accused persons seeking similar relief, the Court clarified that the order was confined to the peculiar facts of the case. Recording its conclusion, the Bench observed:
“
“In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The order shall not be followed as a precedent in the case of respondent’s co-accused and their applications for suspension of sentence shall be decided on their own merits.”