ANILARI versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 1058 · Decided: 09-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 1058 
ANILARI 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2009) 
FEBRUARY 9, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s. 389 -
C Suspension of sentence pending appeal - Essential 
ingredients for - Explained - On facts, conviction and 
sentence u/s. 342, 302 and 201 rlw s. 34 /PC - Application 
for suspension of sentence - Rejection of, by High Court -
On appeal, held: Appellate court is duty bound to objectively 
D assess the matter and record reasons in writing for ordering 
suspension of sentence - Fact that accused on bail during 
trial and no allegation of misuse of liberty, not of much 
significance - Considering that accused is 70 years old and 
in jail for one year, accused to be released on bail on 
E furnishing of security- Penal Code, 1860 - s.342, 302, 201 
rlws.34. 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
appeal was whether the High Court was justified in 
rejecting the application for suspension of sentence u/s 
F 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. Section 389 of the Code of Criminal 
G Procedure, 1973 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 
H 
1058 
ANIL ARI v. STATE.OF WEST BENGAL 
1059 
to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of A 
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 
B 
order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail 
should not be passed as a matter of routine. [Para 8) 
[1061-F-H; 1062-A] 
1.2. The mere fact that during the trial, they were 
granted bail and there was no allegation of misuse of C 
liberty, is really not of much significance. The effect of bail 
granted during trial loses significance when on 
completion of trial, the accused persons have been found 
guilty. The mere fact that during the period when the 
accused persons were on bail during trial there was no 
D 
misuse of liberties, does not per se warrant suspension 
of execution of sentence and grant of bail. What really is 
necessary to be considered by the High Court is whether 
reasons existed to suspend the execution of sentence 
and thereafter grant bail. [Para 10] [1062-C-D] 
E 
Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and others 2002 (9) SCC 364; 
Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and another 2002 (9) 
SCC 366; Kishori Lal v. Rupa and Others 2004 (7) SCC 638; 
Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra 2005 (5) SCC 
281 and Gomti v. Thakurdas and Ors. 2007 (11) SCC 160, 
referred to 
1.3. Considering the age of the accused-appellant, he 
is directed to be released on bail on furnishing security 
F 
of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the 
G 
satisfaction of the Court. [Para 13) [1063-B-C] 
Case Law Reference: 
2002 (9) sec 364 
2002 (9) sec 366 
Referred to. 
Referred to. 
Para 11 
Para 11 
H 
A 
1060 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 
2004(7) sec 638 
2005 (5) sec 281 
2001 (11) sec 160 
Referred to. 
Referred to. 
Referred to. 
Para 12 
Para 12 
Para 12 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 239 of 2009. 
c 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 3.4.2008 of the 
High Court of Calcutta at Calcutta in C.R.A.N. No. 826 of 2008 
in C.R.A. No. 168 of 2008. 
Pijush K. Roy and Sushil Kumar Verma for the Appellant. 
H.K. Puri, S.K. Puri, V.M. Chauhan and Pirya Puri for the 
Respondent. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court rejecting the 
E 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 
F Medinipur for offences punishable under Sections 342, 302 and 
201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in 
short the 'IPC'). 
3. Law was set into motion on 9.7.1994
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.