The Supreme Court granted bail to Bherulal, a 70-year-old man with significant visual impairment, after criticizing the High Court’s decision. The bench highlighted the lack of consideration for Bherulal’s plea for suspension of his sentence, emphasizing the need for proper application of legal principles.
New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to a 70-year-old visually impaired man, criticizing the Madhya Pradesh High Court for its “casual approach” in handling the case. The decision made in the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8388/2024, titled “Bherulal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh.”
Bherulal, the petitioner, convicted by the First Additional Sessions Judge in Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh, for offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 420 (cheating), Section Section 467 (forgery), Section 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence). He sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 5,000.
After his conviction, Bherulal filed an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 5480 of 2023) in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, along with applications to suspend his sentence and release him on bail pending the final disposal of the appeal. However, the High Court rejected these applications.
In a notable ruling, the Supreme Court, with Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan presiding, addressed several critical legal issues.
The Supreme Court highlighted,
“If the sentence imposed by the trial court is for a fixed term, then ordinarily the appellate court should consider the plea for suspension of sentence liberally, unless there are any exceptional circumstances.”
The bench criticized the High Court for its lack of reasoning in denying the suspension of the sentence.
The court acknowledged Bherulal’s advanced age of 70 years and his significant health challenges, notably his 90% vision impairment. It noted that Bherulal already served half of his four-year sentence.
High Court’s Approach: The Supreme Court sharply criticized the High Court’s approach, stating,
“We take notice of the fact that stereotype orders are passed by the High Courts without any application of mind.”
The court further remarked,
“Such casual approach of the High Court has led to the filing of this Special Leave Petition before the highest court of the country.”
The Supreme Court issued a notice regarding the Special Leave Petition and ordered the release of Bherulal on bail, with conditions set by the trial court. The bench made several significant remarks:
The Supreme Court observed,
“The High Court could have easily considered the plea for suspension of sentence in the first instance itself.”
The court noted,
“This litigation could have been easily avoided had the High Court applied the correct principles of law governing the suspension of sentence of fixed terms of imprisonment.”
The bench stated,
“There is nothing on record to indicate that his release on bail pending appeal would thwart the course of justice.”
Read Also: Nitish Kumar Justifies Quota Benefits in Supreme Court, Citing Educational Disparities
A team of legal professionals represented the petitioner, Bherulal, in the case.
Led by Advocate on Record Mr. Anup Kumar, the legal team included Mrs. Neha Jaiswal, Mr. Shivam Kumar, Ms. Pragya Choudhary, and Ms. Shruti Singh, who collectively presented the arguments before the Supreme Court.