New Delhi, Jan 20: The Supreme Court has made it clear that an accused whose sentence has been suspended and who has been released on bail cannot be forced to remain personally present before an appellate or revisional court on every date of hearing.
A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale delivered the ruling while hearing a matter arising from a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner had been convicted by the trial court, but her sentence was suspended during the pendency of the appeal and she was granted bail.
However, the appellate court later cancelled her bail and issued a non-bailable warrant for her absence on certain dates, a move that was challenged before the apex court.
Strongly disapproving the approach of the appellate court, the Supreme Court held that once bail is granted after suspension of sentence, insisting on the accused’s physical presence at every hearing is unnecessary, oppressive and devoid of legal justification, particularly when appeals often remain pending for extended periods.
Describing the cancellation of bail and issuance of non-bailable warrants as “appalling and shocking”, the Bench observed that the appellate court should have explored reasonable alternatives such as appointing an amicus curia or permitting other lawful arrangements instead of resorting to coercive measures.
The apex court restored the petitioner’s bail and directed that it shall continue until the final disposal of the criminal appeal. It further ordered that a copy of the judgment be placed before the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court for circulation among the district judiciary through an appropriate circular.
The Supreme Court also directed the appellate court to decide the pending appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. (KNC)
