Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 522 (DEL)

Manoj Kumar v. State (NCT) of Delhi

2012-02-09

GITA MITTAL, J.R.MIDHA

body2012
JUDGMENT : Crl.M.A. 1333/2012 1. The appellant before this Court was granted interim suspension of sentence by an order dated 13.12.2011 subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court. 2. By way of the present application the appellant seeks a variation of the terms on which the suspension of sentence has been granted. It is submitted that on account of the extreme poverty of the appellant, he is unable to furnish surety. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is the only earning member of his family which consists of his parents, three younger brothers and two sisters. Only the appellant's elder sister Sarita is married while one younger sister is unmarried. The police has verified the submissions of the appellant and has submitted a verification report wherein it is stated that Arun, the appellant's brother aged approximately 17-18 years, is mentally weak and untraceable. The two other brothers of the appellant are minors. 3. So far as the economic condition of Shri Anandi Yadav, father of the appellant is concerned, he is stated to be living below the poverty line. The family could not produce any documents of the illness of his parents. Inspector Ravinder Sharma, SHO, PS Shakarpur in his report dated 11.12.2011 has further confirmed that the family of the appellant has been unable to make the jail visits on account of their extreme financial constraints. 4. We find that order dated 13.12.2011 has noted that the appellant has been in custody for a period of six years. The interim suspension of sentence was granted after considering the afore-noticed facts. 5. Mr. Sumeet Verma, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on judgments of this Court in Kundan Kumar Singh v. State, 2005 (1) JCC 455 and Ram Parvesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2005 (2) JCC 943 in support of the prayer made in the present application. In both of these pronouncements, on a consideration of the extreme penury of the appellant, the Court had modified the requirement of furnishing sureties prior to suspension of sentence of the appellants. In both of these pronouncements, on a consideration of the extreme penury of the appellant, the Court had modified the requirement of furnishing sureties prior to suspension of sentence of the appellants. In both these precedents, the Court had placed reliance on pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported in Hussainara Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81 as well as in Moti Ram and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) 4 SCC 47 . 6. The observations of the Supreme Court in para 3 of Hussainara Khatoon (supra) shed light on the issues which arise for consideration in such applications and read as follows :— "The poor find it difficult to furnish bail even without sureties because very often the amount of the bail fixed by the courts is so unrealistically excessive that in a majority of cases the poor are unable to satisfy the police or the Magistrate about their solvency for the amount of the bail and where the bail is with sureties, as is usually the case, it becomes an almost impossible task for the poor to find persons sufficiently solvent to stand as sureties. The result is that either they are flied by the police and revenue officials or by touts and professional sureties and sometimes they have even to incur debts for securing their release or, being unable to obtain release, they have to remain in jail until such time as the court is able to take up their cases for trial, leading to grave consequences, namely, (1) though presumed innocent, they are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail life, (2) they are prevented from contributing to the preparation of their defence, and (3) they lose their job, if they have one, and are deprived of an opportunity to work to support themselves and their family members with the result that the burden of their detention almost invariably falls heavily on the innocent members of the family. It is here that the poor find our legal and judicial system oppressive and heavily weighted against them and a feeling of frustration and despair occurs upon them as they find that they are helplessly in a position of inequality with the non-poor." 7. The appellant before this Court is a person who is placed akin to those who have been considered in para 3 afore-noticed. 8. The appellant before this Court is a person who is placed akin to those who have been considered in para 3 afore-noticed. 8. The appellant has been granted only interim suspension of sentence for a period of six weeks from the date of his release. There is no dispute on behalf of the State that the appellant is not in a position to furnish the surety bond as was directed by the Court in the order dated 13.12.2011. Given the extreme circumstances noted in the said order as well as the position noticed hereinabove, we are of the view that the present application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. 9. The learned APP for the State has expressed an apprehension that the appellant may abscond and not surrender after the period of interim suspension is over. So far as this aspect is concerned, we are of the view that the appropriate orders to track the movement of the appellant and to ensure his surrender to jail upon completion of the suspension of sentence can be provided for. 10. In view of the above, we direct as follows :- (i) The sentence of the appellant shall be suspended for a period of six weeks from the date of his release subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with the Jail Superintendent as well as additionally depositing an amount of Rs.5,000/- with the Jail Superintendent. The said amount may be released to the appellant, upon his surrender to the jail after expiry of the period of suspension of the sentence.. (ii) It is further directed that during the period of the suspension of sentence, the appellant shall report at 11.00 AM every Saturday to the SHO, PS Shakarpur, Delhi or the SHO, PS Khira, District Jamue (Bihar). (iii) On expiry of the period of suspension of sentence in terms of this order the appellant shall surrender to the Tihar Jail. (iv) In case the appellant does not report to the police station, information shall be given immediately to this Court and the Registry shall place the same before this Court for appropriate orders. (v) Copy of this order shall be sent by the Registry to both the police stations as well as to the appellant in jail. Application stands allowed in the above terms.