The Supreme Court has held that there is no rigid requirement for a convict to have served half of the substantive sentence for the suspension of their sentence during the pendency of an appeal. If a case for relief is otherwise made out on merits, the appellate court retains the discretion to grant bail or suspend the sentence.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made this significant observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) against a High Court order suspending the sentence of a convict. The convict had been sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and had served 4.5 years. The NCB argued that the High Court erred in suspending the sentence as the convict had not completed half of the sentence period.
Judgment Cannot Restrict Courts’ Power to Grant Bail
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the NCB, relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 731, arguing that unless the respondent had completed half the sentence, they were not entitled to bail pending the appeal.
However, the bench clarified that the 1994 judgment was intended as a one-time measure to address prison overcrowding and did not restrict courts from granting bail otherwise.
“The directions issued were by way of a one-time measure. This judgment does not take away the power of the Court to grant regular bail even if the period undergone by a prisoner is less than what is provided in the said judgment. The judgment of this Court cannot be read to mean that the powers of the Court to grant bail have been curtailed.”
The Court further observed that a mechanical rule requiring a convict to serve half the sentence before being considered for bail would make courts powerless to grant relief even when justified on merits.
“There cannot be a rule of thumb that a convict cannot be released on bail pending an appeal against conviction unless he has undergone half of the substantive sentence.”
Strict Approach in Fixed-Term Sentences Violates Article 21
The bench warned against a rigid approach in cases involving fixed-term sentences, emphasizing that such a stance would result in many convicts serving their entire sentence before their appeal is heard. This, the Court held, would violate their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“In the case of fixed-term sentences, if the Courts start adopting a rigid approach, in a large number of cases, till the appeal reaches the stage of final hearing, the accused would undergo the entire sentence. This will be a violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21. Moreover, it will defeat the right of appeal.”
Bail Can Be Granted Despite Section 37 NDPS Act Rigours
The NCB also argued that Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes strict conditions on granting bail in drug-related cases. However, the Court held that prolonged incarceration, coupled with delays in appeal hearings, could justify granting bail despite these statutory restrictions.
“There is no dispute that the Appellate Court is bound by the constraints of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while considering bail during the pendency of an appeal. However, if an accused has served a substantial part of their sentence and their appeal is unlikely to be heard before the sentence is completed, denying bail solely on the ground of Section 37 would violate Article 21.”
Case: Narcotics Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder Singh
