Allowed¶14

Suresh Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Sept 2024CRMP/2838/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence; bail pending appeal; Section 25(1)(a) Arms Act; seven-year maximum sentence; custody since arrest (10.7.2021/11.7.2021); undergone more than three years; 2023 appeals not listed per Roster; Atul alias Ashutosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Crl. A. 579/2024, SC); personal and surety bonds ₹25,000/- each; State of H.P.; single-Judge criminal appeal Cr. Appeal No. 354 of 2023.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant/appellant ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, undertaking to appear before the Court as and when directed and to undergo imprisonment in case of dismissal of the appeal, and subject to deposit of the fine amount, if not deposited earlier. ¶14

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant/appellant should be suspended and he be released on bail pending hearing of his criminal appeal.

¶7

Court's answer

Since the applicant/appellant has undergone more than three years of his seven-year sentence and his 2023 appeal is not likely to be taken up for hearing soon as per the prevailing Roster, he is entitled to bail; following the Supreme Court's decision in Atul alias Ashutosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the accused has undergone half the sentence and the appeal is unlikely to be heard soon, suspension should be allowed and bail granted.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Suspension of sentence / bail pending criminal appeal: The applicant, convicted by the Trial Court (judgment of conviction dated 1.7.2023; order of sentence dated 17.7.2023) and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment — the maximum under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act — had been in custody since arrest in July 2021 and had undergone more than three years. As appeals of the year 2023 were not being taken up for hearing under the Roster, his appeal was unlikely to be listed soon. Applying Atul alias Ashutosh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2024, decided on 2.2.2024 (where bail was granted to an accused who had undergone half the sentence with no early prospect of hearing), the Court held the applicant entitled to bail, allowed the application, and ordered release on personal and surety bonds of ₹25,000/- each, subject to undertaking to appear and to undergo imprisonment on dismissal of the appeal, and subject to deposit of fine.

¶1

Suresh Kumar Vs. State of H.P.

¶2

Cr. Appeal No. 354 of 2023

¶3

Reserved on: 20.8.2024

¶4

03.09.2024 Present: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant.

¶5

Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

¶6

Cr. MP No. 2838 of 2023

¶7

The applicant has filed the present application for seeking suspension of sentence. It has been asserted that the applicant/appellant has filed an appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 1.7.2023 and order of sentence dated 17.7.2023. He has a good prima facie case and his appeal is likely to succeed. He has been in custody since 11.7.2021. He was awarded a total imprisonment of seven years which is the maximum sentence provided under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. The applicant/appellant does not have any criminal history. Hence, the application.

¶8

The application is opposed by filing a reply denying the contents of the application. It was asserted that the learned Trial Court found the applicant/appellant guilty and rightly sentenced him to undergo imprisonment. There is no merit in the appeal.

¶9

Hence, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed.

¶10

3. Heard.

¶11

A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court shows that the applicant/appellant was arrested on 10.7.2021. He has been in custody since then. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years. He has undergone more than three years of imprisonment as of today. He had filed an appeal in the year 2023. The appeals of the year 2023 are not being taken up for hearing as per the Roster which means that his appeal is not likely to be taken up soon. The applicant/appellant would have undergone a substantial period of imprisonment at the time of listing of his appeal as per the present roster.

¶12

It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Atul alias Ashutosh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2024, decided on 2.2.2024 , that when the accused had already undergone half of the sentence and his appeal was not likely to be taken up for hearing soon, the suspension should be allowed and the bail should be granted. Since in the present case, the appeal is not to be likely taken up for hearing

¶13

soon keeping in view the Roster; therefore, the applicant/appellant is entitled to bail.

¶14

Consequently, the present application is allowed and the applicant/appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, undertaking to appear before this Court as and when directed to do so and to undergo imprisonment in case of dismissal of the appeal and subject to deposit of fine amount, if not deposited earlier.

¶15