2007 (6) TMI 568 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved: Bail pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal u/s 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, interpretation of the scheme of Section 389, consideration of suspension of conviction, discretion of the trial Judge in granting bail, payment of fine, nature of offence, and entitlement to bail in non-bailable offences.

Summary:

Issue 1: Bail Pending Hearing and Final Disposal of Criminal Appeal u/s 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The applicant, accused No. 1, sought bail pending the Criminal Appeal against the conviction and sentence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial Judge had convicted the applicant under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act, sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The applicant applied for bail under Section 389(3) of the Code, which was initially rejected by the trial Judge.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the Scheme of Section 389
The trial Judge's decision to reject the bail plea was based on a misinterpretation of the scheme of Section 389. The applicant did not request suspension of conviction in the bail application. The Court emphasized that the scheme allows for bail pending appeal, especially when the punishment is less than three years and the fine has been paid.

Issue 3: Consideration of Suspension of Conviction
The Court clarified that the applicant's bail plea did not involve a request for suspension of the conviction. The trial Judge should have considered granting bail, especially when the fine had been paid, and the punishment was less than three years. The Court highlighted the importance of exercising discretionary jurisdiction in such cases.

Issue 4: Discretion of the Trial Judge in Granting Bail
The trial Judge's refusal to grant bail, despite the applicant meeting the criteria under Section 389, was deemed as an improper exercise of discretion. The Court emphasized that bail is a rule, and denial should only occur in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case.

Issue 5: Payment of Fine and Nature of Offence
The Court noted that the applicant had paid the fine and was in jail pending the appeal. The nature of the offence and the fact that one of the accused had been acquitted were considered in granting bail. The Court ordered the suspension of the substantive sentence and granted bail upon furnishing a surety.

Conclusion:
The Court admitted the Appeal, suspended the substantive sentence, and granted bail to the applicant on certain terms and conditions. The decision highlighted the importance of correctly interpreting and applying the provisions of Section 389 for granting bail in cases where the punishment is less than three years and the fine has been paid.