Supreme Court of India
ANILARI versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
- Decided
- 9 February 2009
- Judges listed
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [2009] 1 S.C.R. 1058 · 2009 INSC 121
- Also cited as
- (2009) 11 SCC 363
- AIR 2009 SC 1564
- (2009) 3 SCC(CRI) 1377
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 1060, margin D
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court rejecting the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). Four persons who are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.168 of 2008 were convicted by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Second Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur for offences punishable under Sections 342, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').
p. 1060, margin D
Law was set into motion on 9.7.1994 by one Shamburam Maity, alleging that 17 accused persons and many unknown persons on 8.7.1994 at about 11.00 p.m. in furtherance of their common intention had murdered the complainant's brother Shibram Maity and had concealed the dead body in the house of one Sasanka Maity. The police undertook investigation and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against 19 persons. Charge was framed A on 5.11.2005 and the accused persons faced trial as they pleaded innocence.
pp. 1060–1061, margin F
It is to be noted that charges were framed against 16 persons as two of the accused persons had expired before the commencement of the trial. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence came to hold that appellants before the High Court were guilty as afore-noted. '~
p. 1061
The application for suspension of sentence in terms of Section 389 of Code was filed which was rejected primarily c being of the view that the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4 and 7 was sufficient to establish the accusations and, therefore, this was not a fit case where prayer in terms of Section 389 of Code was to be accepted.
p. 1061
On 29.9.2008 a Special Leave Petition was dismissed in respect of petitioner Nos.2 to 4. Notice was issued qua petitioner No.1 only. Learned counsel for the appellant-Anil Ari submitted that the said appellant is nearly 70 years old and is in jail for nearly one year and that he was on bail during trial.
p. 1061
Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that the trial Court has analysed the evidence in great detail and has come to the conclusion about the guilt of the appellant and three other accused persons.
p. 1061
Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of execution of sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail. There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the appellate Court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed. If he is in confinement, the said .. court can direct that'he be released on bail or on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence bail sbould not be passed as a matter of routine.
pp. 1061–1062
The appellate Court is duty bound to objectively the matter and to record reasons for the conclusion case warrants suspension of execution of sentence of bail.
p. 1062, margin A
The mere fact that during the trial, they bail and there was no allegation of misuse of not of much significance. The effect of bail granted loses significance when on completion of trial, persons have been found guilty. The mere fact period when the accused persons were on bail was no misuse of liberties, does not per se warrant of execution of sentence and grant of bail. necessary to be considered by the High Court reasons existed to suspend the execution thereafter grant bail.
p. 1062, margin A
In Vijay Kumar V. Narendra and others 364) and Ramji Prasad V. Rattan Kumar Jaiswa/ (2002 (9) sec 366), it was held by this Court involving conviction under Section 302 IPC, exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension can be granted. In Vijay Kumar's case (supra) in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving offence like murder punishable under Section Court should consider the relevant factors like accusation made against the accused, the manner"in crime is alleged to have been committed, the offence, and the desirability of releasing the after they have been convicted for committing offence of murder.
p. 1062, margin D
The above position was highlighted Rupa and Others [2004(7) SCC 638], Vasant v. State of Maharashtra [2005 (5) SCC 281] Thakurdas and Ors. (2007 (11) SCC 160). A
pp. 1062–1063, margin G
On the peculiar facts of the case considering the age of the accused appellant Anil Ari, we direct that he shall be released on bail on furnishing security of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Second Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur in Sessions trial No.112/2004 relating to C.R. No.432/1994. It is made clear that we have directed release of appellant No.1 only on considering the fact that he is 70 years old and not on consideration of the merits of the case.
p. 1063
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. N.J. Appeal allowed.
p. 1063