No Rigid Rule That Convict Should Undergo Half Of Sentence For Bail At Appellate Stage, Says Supreme Court

Post By 24law
February 12, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court of India has clarified that the suspension of sentence during the pendency of an appeal cannot be subjected to a rigid rule requiring the convict to have served at least half of the substantive sentence. The court ruled that if a case for relief is made out on merits, the appellate court has the discretion to grant bail or suspend the sentence, regardless of whether the convict has completed half the sentence.

Case Background

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made this significant ruling while dismissing an appeal filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) against an order of the High Court suspending a convict’s sentence. The convict, Lakhwinder Singh, had been sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The High Court had granted him bail after noting that he had already served four and a half years of his sentence and that his appeal was unlikely to be heard before he completed his term.

The NCB, through Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, argued that the High Court should not have suspended the sentence since the convict had not undergone half of his sentence. The prosecution relied on the decision in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India & Ors (1994) 6 SCC 731 to support this contention.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, however, held that the 1994 decision was intended as a one-time measure to address prison overcrowding and should not be interpreted as limiting the courts' inherent powers to grant bail. The bench stated: “The directions issued were by way of a one-time measure. This judgment does not take away the power of the Court to grant regular bail even if the period undergone by a prisoner is less than what is provided in the said judgment. The judgment of this Court cannot be read to mean that the powers of the Court to grant bail have been curtailed.”

The Court further clarified that the appellate courts retain the authority to grant relief in cases where a substantive case is made out, and rigid rules cannot override considerations of justice. The bench observed: “If we interpret the judgment of this Court in such a manner, the Courts will be powerless to grant bail or relief of suspension of sentence even if a case is made out on merits. Therefore, in our view, if a case is made out for the grant of suspension of sentence and/or bail in deserving cases on merits, the Court is not powerless to grant relief of suspension of sentence and bail pending an appeal, even if an accused has not undergone half of the sentence.”

Rigidity in Fixed-Term Sentences Violates Article 21

The Supreme Court also addressed concerns regarding fixed-term sentences, highlighting that a rigid approach could lead to unjust outcomes. The Court noted: “In the case of fixed-term sentences, if the Courts start adopting a rigid approach, in a large number of cases, till the appeal reaches the stage of the final hearing, the accused would undergo the entire sentence. This will be a violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, it will defeat the right of appeal.” The Court emphasized that when an appeal is unlikely to be heard before the completion of the sentence, bail should be considered, provided the case merits relief.

Impact of Section 37 of the NDPS Act

The NCB argued that Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes strict conditions on the grant of bail for drug-related offenses. However, the Court clarified that in cases of long incarceration and when an appeal is unlikely to be heard soon, the appellate court retains discretion to grant bail despite statutory restrictions. “There is no dispute about the fact that the Appellate Court is bound by constraints of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while considering the prayer for the grant of bail during the pendency of an appeal. However, if, in the facts of the case, an accused has undergone a substantial part of the substantive sentence and, considering the pendency of criminal appeals, his appeal is not likely to be heard before the accused undergoes the entire sentence, the Appellate Court can exercise the power of releasing the accused on bail pending the appeal.” The Court held that denying bail solely based on Section 37 of the NDPS Act in such circumstances would violate the accused's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Verdict

Considering that the appeal of the convict was unlikely to be heard before he completed his entire sentence and that he had already served a significant portion of his sentence, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s order granting bail. The bench concluded: “In this case, the appeal preferred by the respondent is not likely to be heard before he undergoes the entire sentence. He has already undergone a substantial part of his 10-year sentence. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the facts of the case.” However, the Court added that if the respondent misused his liberty, the prosecution could seek cancellation of bail. “If the relief of bail is denied in such a factual situation only on the grounds of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it will amount to the violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”