The Madhya Pradesh High Court had earlier rejected the bail application, citing that tainted currency notes were found in the appellant’s possession and that he had no explanation for the same.
New Delhi, April 18 – The Supreme Court has strongly criticised the Madhya Pradesh High Court for rejecting a convict’s request to suspend his sentence, based on a reasoning that the top court says has “no basis in law.”
ALSO READ: “Strange” Trend of Bail : SC Slammed Patna High Court Order to Grant Bail After 6 months
The apex court granted bail to the convict, highlighting the serious issue of delay in hearing appeals due to the huge backlog in high courts.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed “surprise” over the high court’s stance that a convict must undergo at least half of their jail sentence before applying again for suspension of sentence. The Supreme Court clarified that such a rule was never part of the existing law.
“We are surprised that the high court invented a new proposition of law that has no basis,” the bench said on April 17.
The top court further emphasised that bail should be considered if there is little to no chance of the appeal against conviction being heard soon due to the huge pendency of cases in the high courts.
It added that the high court should have followed the established legal principles and not forced the convict to approach the Supreme Court just to get bail.
“The high court should have applied the law as it exists and the petitioner should not have been forced to move before it for bail.”
The Madhya Pradesh High Court had earlier rejected the bail application, citing that tainted currency notes were found in the appellant’s possession and that he had no explanation for the same.
“In view of the fact that tainted currency notes have been recovered from the pocket of pant of the appellant and there is no explanation for the same, no case is made out for grant of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.”
The high court further commented on the second bail application being filed soon after the first one was rejected, saying:
“Second application has been filed… just less than two months of rejection of first application. Accordingly, it is clarified that appellant may revive his prayer for suspension of sentence after undergoing half of the jail sentence including remission.”
The Supreme Court found this approach problematic. It reiterated that trial courts and high courts must not reject bail applications in routine cases of legal violations, especially when the Supreme Court has already laid down clear rulings on such matters.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
