STATE OF HARYANA versus HASMAT

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 132 · Decided: 26-07-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
HASMAT 
JULY 26, 2004 
B 
[ARJJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
S. 389-Suspension of sentence and grant of bail-Accused convicted 
C uls 302 /PC-Pending appeal, on application of accused uls 389, High 
Court releasing him on bail observing that the accused was on parole 
earlier and there was no allegation of misuse of liberty by him-Held, 
appellate court is duty bound to objectively assess the matter and to record 
reasons for conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution of 
D sentence and grant of bail-Order of High Court does not meet the 
requirement-Impugned order set aside. 
Respondent-accused was convicted alongwith others, inter alia, 
us/ 302 r/w s.149 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. In the 
appeal before the High Court. he filed an application purported to be 
E u/s 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of 
sentence and releasing him on bail. The High Court granted bail 
observing that after the conviction the accused had been granted 
parole and he did not misuse the liberty during that period. 
F 
It was contended for the State that the respondent accused was 
the key figure in the gruesome murder and because he was granted 
parole, the same could not be a ground for suspension of sentence and 
grant of bail in terms of s.389 Cr.P.C. 
G 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD : There is a distinction between bail and suspension of 
sentence. One of the essential ingredients of s.389 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973, is the requirement for the appellate court 
to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the 
H sentence or order appealed. The appellate court is duty bound to 
132 
,.... 
STATE OF HARYANA v. HASMAT [PASAYAT, J.] 
133 
objectively assess the matter and to record reasons for the conclusion A 
that the case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant 
of bail. The only factor which seems to have weighed with the High 
Court for directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is the 
absence of allegation of misuse ofliberty during the period the accused-
respondent was granted parole. It does not per se warrant suspension B 
of execution of sentence and grant of bail. Order of the High Court 
does not meet the requirement, and is set aside. (134-F-H; 135-A-G) 
Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and Ors., (2002) 9 SCC 364 and Ramji 
Pasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and Anr., (2002) 9 SCC 366, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 
715-617 of 2004. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.5.2003 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 14009-10 of 2003 in Crl. A. No. D 
100-DB of 2002. 
Sunder Khatri and Vijay Kumar Garg for the Appellant. 
Zafar Sadique and Balraj Dewan for the Respondent. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted. 
The State ofHaryana calls in question grant of bail to accused Hasmat 
(respondent herein) by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Criminal F 
miscellaneous No. 14009/2003 was filed in Criminal Appeal No. 100/2002 
purportedly under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
(in short the 'Code') with a prayer that the substantive sentence imposed 
i.e. imprisonment for life. and a fine of Rs. 10,000 should be suspended 
and the respondent be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal G 
filed. The accused-respondent along with twenty two others faced trial for 
alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307, 
324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') 
and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the 'Arms Act'). 
Accused - respondent along with some others was found guilty of offences H 
134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A punishable under Sections 302, 307, 148 read with section 149 !PC. They 
were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay the fine as. 
aforenoted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 
149 !PC. 
B 
The High Court by the impugned order granted bail primarily on the 
ground that after the conviction the accused respondent had been granted 
parole on three occasions and there was no allegation of any misuse of 
liberty during the period of parole. 
According to learned counsel for the appellant-State it was the 
C accused respondent who was the key figure in a gruesome murder and there 
was direct
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.