LexSIDHARTHA VASHISHT @ MANU SHARMA versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 220 A SIDHARTHA VASHISHT @ MANU SHARMA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) (Criminal M.P. No. 1775 of 2007) IN B (Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 2007) MAY 12, 2008 ->4 [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.) c Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 389 - Suspen- sion of sentence and release on bail - Charges u/s 302 r/w s. 201 and 120 B /PC and u/s 27 of Arms Act - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court - During pendency of ap- peal to Supreme Court, application uls 389 - Held: In view of D seriousness and gravity of offence, manner of commission of offeroce, no case for suspension of sentence and release on bail made out - Appeal is also likely to be heard within mea- . suraib/e distance of time - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 rlw s. 201 and 120-B -Arms Act, 1959 - s. 27. E Applicant-accused was acquitted of the charges u/s 302 IPC r/w s. 201 and 120 B IPC and u/s 27 of Arms Act, 1959. On app~I, High Court convicted him of the above charges. During pendency of the appeal before this Court, application u/s 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail was heard by this court. .. F Disposing of the application, the Court HELD: 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case to exercise power under G Section 389 Cr.P.C .. Though the trial Court has acquitted the applicant-accused for the offences with which he was charged, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted him under Section 302 IPC and ordered him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Being ag- . . H 220 IDHARTHA VASHISHT@ MANU SHARMA v. STATE 221 --t· (NCT OF DELHI) grieved by the said order, he has filed an appeal which A has been admitted, is already on board and awaits final hearing. Hence, within 'measurable distance of time' the appeal is likely to be heard. Keeping in view the serious- ness of offence, the manner in which the crime was said to have been committed and the gravity of offence, no B ·~ case has been made out by the applicant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. [Para 35] [235-G-H; 236-A] Akhilesh Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar, 2000 (6) SCC 461; Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and Ors., 2002 (9) SCC 364; Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and Anr. 2002 (9) SCC c 366; State of Haryana v. Hasmat, 2004 (6) SCC 175; Kishori Lal v. Rupa and Ors.,2004 (7) SCC 638; State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Wamanrao Smarlh, 2008 (4) SCALE 412 - re- lied on. Kasbmira Singh v. State of Punjab, 1977 (4) SCC 291; D Babu Singh and Ors. v. State of U. P, 1978 (1) SCC 579; Shailendra Kumar v. State of Delhi 2000 (4) SCC 178 : JT 2000 (1) SC 184 - distinguished. Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 All 356 - referred to. E 1.2 The applicant has been found guilty and con- victed by a competent criminal court ( High Court). Initial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, there- ;.... fore, is no more available to the applicant. The High Court has given cogent reasons for not accepting the view of F the trial Court and grounds recorded for not believing prosecution witnesses. [Paras 16 and 181 [228-B; 229-A] 2. The mere fact that during the period of trial, the accused was on bail and there was no misuse of liberty, G does not per se warrant suspension of execution of sen- tence and grant of bail. What really necessary is to con- sider whether reasons exist to suspend execution of the sentence and grant of bail. [Para 34] [235-E; 236-A] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDCTION : Criminal M.P. H 222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. "" - A No. 1775 of 2007 From the Judgment & Order dated 18/20.12.2006 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 193/ 2006 B Ram Jethmalani, P.H. Parekh, Lata Krishnamurthy, E.R. Kumar, La lit Chauhan, Ajay Jha, Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Mary Mizty, "' . Rajdeep Banerjee, Joyeeta Banerjee, Bansuri Swaraj, Rukhmini Bobde, Somandri Goud (for P.H. Parekh & Co.) for the Appel- lant. c Gopal Subramanium ASG, Mukta Gupta, Nikhil Nayyar, Ankit Singhal, T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas and Vibha Garg for the Respondent. Mamta Kalra, in-Person for Intervening Party. ' D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. The present application is filed by the appellant-accused under Section 389 of the Code of Crimi- nal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for E suspension of sentence pending appeal in this Court and to release him on bail. 2.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.