Purushothaman vs State of Tamil Nadu

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

30 October 2023

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No.3341 of 2023

Result

Allowed

Bench

Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal

Citation

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 181 : 2023 INSC 970

Issue for consideration

When the sentence of accused is suspended on appeal and he is released on bail, whether the High Court can cancel the bail without giving a reasonable opportunity, to the accused of being heard.

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389 – Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail - Appeal against conviction by the accused admitted by the High Court – Substantive sentence of the accused suspended and he was enlarged on bail – When appeal called for hearing, the High Court cancelled the bail of the accused, without giving an opportunity of hearing, as an advocate for the accused sought four weeks adjournment – Correctness: Held: For the default of the advocate appointed by the accused, the appellate court cannot penalize the accused by proceeding to cancel his bail only on the ground that his advocate has sought adjournment and that also without giving an opportunity of being heard to him on the issue of cancellation of bail – Under sub-section 1 of s. 389, while suspending the sentence of the accused who is in Jail, the appellate court has to enlarge the accused on bail till the final disposal of the appeal – Court can even Suo Motu issue a notice calling upon the accused to show cause why the bail should not be cancelled – Under no circumstances, the bail granted to an accused u/s. 389(1) can be cancelled without giving a reasonable opportunity to the accused of being heard – In a given case, if the advocate appearing for the accused seeks adjournment on untenable and unreasonable grounds, the appellate court is well within its power to refuse the prayer for adjournment, and has a discretion to appoint an advocate to espouse the cause of the appellant – Thus, such approach on the part of the High Court cannot be countenanced – Impugned order is quashed and set aside and the earlier order granting suspension of sentence and bail to the accused is restored – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – s. 6. [Paras 5, 7-10]

LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Bani Singh v. State of U.P. (1996) 4 SCC 720: [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR

247 – relied on.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ABHAY S.OKA, J. Leave granted. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The appellant-accused was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’). The appeal against conviction preferred by the appellant was admitted by the High Court and by the order dated 12th January, 2018, the substantive sentence of the appellant was suspended and he was ordered to be enlarged on bail. 4. On 7th July, 2023, the said Criminal App

View Subscription Plans →