The Supreme Court said that persons on a fixed term sentence should be released on bail and their sentence suspended if their appeal is unlikely to be decided before completion of their sentence.

SC was dealing with a case from Madhya Pradesh, where a person facing sentence of five years was denied bail by the Madhya Pradesh high court.

In the order, a top court bench headed by justice AS Oka said, “Notwithstanding several decisions of this Court holding that when there is a fixed term sentence and especially when the appeal is not likely to be heard before completing entire period of sentence, normally suspension of sentence and bail should be granted.”

Also Read: ‘Quotas promote efficiency’: Supreme Court starts hearing on SC/ST reservation

The Court directed accused Atul alias Ashutosh to be produced before the trial court that will enlarge him on bail on appropriate terms and conditions till the appeal is finally decided by the high court.

The order was passed on February 2 and uploaded on the website this week.

Setting aside the HC order passed on August 31, 2023, the bench, also comprising justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, “We find that in several deserving cases, bail is being denied. Such cases should never be required to be brought before this Court.”

The petitioner before the Court was convicted under Section 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for possessing fake currency notes worth ₹44,000.

The state police had opposed the bail before the high court claiming that the charge against him was grave and an enquiry report established that all currency notes in his possession were fake.

The top court noted that the trial court’s conviction was in 2022 and the accused had already undergone half the sentence.

The order said, “The appeal against conviction of the year 2022 is not likely to reach before he completes the entire sentence. Hence, a case is made out for grant of suspension of sentence pending the appeal and grant of bail.”

The HC while refusing to suspend the sentence and grant bail had said, “Looking at the gravity of crime and also the evidence establishing the criminal act of appellant (Atul) in which it is found proved that he knowingly had the fake currency notes in his possession with an intention to use them, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence which was for five years rigorous imprisonment.”