Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 792 (JK)

Sat Pal v. State of J&K

2017-09-01

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of instant application, applicant / appellant, namely, Sat Pal seeks suspension of the conviction/sentence dated 06th March, 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur, by which the applicant/appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 307 & 341 RPC and prays for release of applicant on bail, inter alia, on the ground that the appeal is pending in this Court since 2013. The Trial Court has awarded him rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) for commission of offence under Section 307 RPC and rigorous imprisonment of one month for the commission of offences under Section 341 RPC. 2. It is stated that the applicant was initially arrested on 17.10.2009 and released on bail on 27.08.2010. The applicant was again arrested on 06.03.2013, the date of conviction and since then he is languishing in jail. Thus, the applicant has served more than half of the sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submitted that in view of the pendency of cases of similar nature, there is no possibility of consideration of the instant appeal for final hearing in near future. It is further submitted that there is a settled principle of law that where the accused has already undergone half of the sentence awarded and is in continuous custody, he is entitled to be released on bail. 4. On the basis of submissions made above, learned counsel seeks suspension of sentence and release of applicant on bail. 5. State has filed the objections to the instant application, whereby opposed the bail application, stating that the offences committed by the applicant/appellant, for which he has been held guilty by the Trial Court are of very serious and heinous nature, which had great impact in the society at large. It has also been stated in the objections that the offences committed by the applicant/appellant are against the society at large in general and against the complaint/injured in particular, for which the applicant does not deserve any leniency while consideration of his present petition/bail application. 6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as learned State Counsel and considered the law on the subject. 7. 6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as learned State Counsel and considered the law on the subject. 7. Section 497-D of Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:- “497-D. Maximum period for which an under trial prisoner can be detained.-Where a person has during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code or an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under the law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties: Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded in the writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of personal bond with or without sureties: Provided further that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than maximum period of imprisonment provided for said offence under the law. Explanation:- In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded.” 8. Bare perusal of Section 497-D Cr.P.C., makes it clear that where a person has during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code or an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under the law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties. 9. From the perusal of the file, it is evident that the appellant-accused has served more than half of the sentence awarded to him and he is still in custody. 10. In case titled, “Mithu Pasi and Anr. Vs. 9. From the perusal of the file, it is evident that the appellant-accused has served more than half of the sentence awarded to him and he is still in custody. 10. In case titled, “Mithu Pasi and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2016 (8) Scale 654, it is held as under:- “Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 389 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 326 Sentence- Suspension of-Appellant inflicted injury with knife on victim-Already undergone six years imprisonment without remission out of ten years awarded-Just and proper to direct suspension of remaining sentence.” 11. In case titled, “Thana Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics, 2013 AIR (SCW) 800”, it is held as under:- “Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance (NDPS) Act, 1985-Criminal Procedure-Bail in NDPS case-Delay in Trial-Appellant was languishing in jail for more than twelve years, awaiting, even the commencement of his trial for an offence under NDPS Act and he consistently denied bail, as noted, even by the High Court-Court took serious note of the fact that the maximum punishment for the offence in question is incarceration for twenty years, hence the under trial remained in detention for a period exceeding ½ of the maximum period of imprisonment, in the light of Section 37 of the Act, stated to be against the express pronouncement of it in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners Vs. Union of India and ors., (1994) 6 SCC 731 - Court not only granted the bail deserved by appellant-Thana Singh, but in a view to ensure that in future, no under trial under NDPS Act is made to suffer such an anguish and plight, issued several directions.” 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Bhim Singh Vs. Union of India and ors., 2016 (1) SCC (Cri) 663” has held that ‘under trial prisoners, who have completed half of maximum sentence, for which they were arrested not be detained in jail.’ 13. Appeal is a continuation of trial and the same is pending since 2013. There are many such appeals pending, which are prior to this appeal, for arguments. So there is less chance of final consideration of this appeal in near future. 14. In view of the above, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant/appellant on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (a) That the applicant/appellant-Sat Pal shall furnish personal bond in the amount of Rs. So there is less chance of final consideration of this appeal in near future. 14. In view of the above, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant/appellant on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (a) That the applicant/appellant-Sat Pal shall furnish personal bond in the amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar Judicial of this Court. (b) The applicant/appellant shall not leave the State of Jammu and Kashmir without permission of this Court. (c) The applicant/appellant shall appear before this Court on each and every date of hearing. 15. Accordingly, the application is allowed.