Supreme Court Disappointed With Yet Another Allahabad HC Order | Says Ignoring Law On Sentence Suspension Defeats Right To Appeal
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside an order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which had declined to suspend a sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment imposed by a Trial Court. The Apex Court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the suspension application, directing it to decide the matter within fifteen days. Stating the importance of preserving the value of appellate rights, the Court held that non-consideration of a sentence suspension plea in fixed-term convictions could render the entire appeal process futile.
The Court concluded that the High Court failed to apply well-established legal principles while declining the appellant's application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Apex Court stated that appellate courts must be mindful of both the limited duration of sentence and the delay in hearing the appeal, and must not allow the appeal to become meaningless due to afflux of time. Consequently, the impugned High Court order was set aside with explicit directions for reconsideration.
The matter before the Supreme Court arose from an appeal challenging the refusal of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to suspend the sentence imposed upon the appellant. The appellant had been tried before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Meerut, Uttar Pradesh in POCSO Case No. 270/2016. The charges included offences under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 354, 354Kha, 323, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Following the conclusion of trial proceedings, the Trial Court convicted the appellant and imposed the following sentences:
- One year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000 under Section 354 IPC;
- Four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 4,000 under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act;
- Four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 under Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act.
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 8689/2024 before the Allahabad High Court. While the appeal was pending final hearing, the appellant submitted an application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking suspension of the substantive sentence.
On 29 May 2025, the High Court rejected the application for suspension of sentence. The High Court held: "Having heard the learned counsel for applicant/appellant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant/appellant, accusation made, this court finds that the objections raised by the learned AGA in opposition to this application for suspension of sentence could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant/appellant with reference to the record at this stage, therefore, irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant/appellant in support of this application for suspension of sentence and also considering the fact that the applicant/appellant has been held to be guilty of committing the offence which is not only immoral but also heinous, therefore, this Court does not find any good or sufficient ground so as to enlarge the applicant/appellant on bail during the pendency of present appeal."
Subsequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court through a criminal appeal arising from Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11361/2025.
The Supreme Court analysed the High Court’s approach and expressed its disappointment, stating: "The impugned Order is one more from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad with which we are disappointed."
The Court observed that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court was not one of life imprisonment but a fixed-term sentence, with the maximum being four years. Citing its earlier judgement in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others v. State of Gujarat (1999) 4 SCC 421, the Court held: "When a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence should be considered by the Appellate Court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances."
The Bench clarified that different considerations apply for life sentences, where a stricter standard is appropriate. For fixed-term sentences, however, appellate courts must recognize the risk of the sentence being fully served before the appeal is heard. It further stated: "If for any reason the sentence of a limited duration cannot be suspended, every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits, more so when a motion for expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in such cases."
Referring to earlier cases such as Omprakash Sahni vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Anr. (2023) 6 SCC 123 and Kishori Lal v. Rupa (2004) 7 SCC 638, the Court reiterated the factors that must be considered by appellate courts: "The appellate court is duty-bound to objectively assess the matter and to record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail."
"What really was necessary to be considered by the High Court is whether reasons existed to suspend the execution of sentence and thereafter grant bail."
The Supreme Court stated that the High Court had erred by merely summarizing the prosecution's case and the oral evidence without applying the settled legal standards. It noted: "That is not the correct approach."
The Bench warned of the practical consequence of such oversight: "Appeal of 2024 is not likely to be taken up in near future. Ultimately, if 4 years are to elapse in jail the same would render the appeal infructuous and that would be travesty of justice."
The Supreme Court concluded that the impugned High Court order could not be sustained in law. The following directions were issued: "We set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the plea of the appellant – herein for suspension of the substantive order of sentence keeping in mind the principles of law as explained by us aforesaid."
The Court stressed the need for the High Court to consider the sentence's fixed-term nature:
"The High Court shall keep in mind that the sentence is for a fixed term, i.e. 4 years and it is only if there are any compelling circumstances on record to indicate that the release of the appellant would not be in public interest that the Court may order accordingly."
It further noted: "We are once again constrained to observe that such errors creep in at the level of High Court and only because the well-settled principles of law on the subject are not applied correctly."
Reaffirming the process of legal adjudication, the Court advised: "It is very important to first look into the subject-matter. Thereafter the court should look into the issue involved. In the last the court should look into the plea of the litigant and then proceed to apply the correct principles of law."
Finally, the Bench directed: "The High Court shall re-hear the application filed by the appellant – herein afresh at the earliest and pass an appropriate order within 15 days from today."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mohd. Fuzail Khan, AOR, Ms. Shisba Chawla, Adv., Mr. Anisul Haque, Adv.
Case Title: Aasif @ Pasha vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 944
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3409/2025
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan
