In Shri R. Sekar & Anr., Vs State rep by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, [Crl MP No. 971/2024 in Crl A. No. 98/2024] the Madras High Court crystalised the directions given by the High Court and the Supreme Court relating to right of the accused person to seek suspension of sentence and further directed the registry to circulate the order to all trial Courts in the State after noticing that Trial Courts have been denying suspension of sentence when the Accused had never been arrested and let out on bail during investigation or trial.
CASE SUMMARY
- The Appellant was before the Madras High Court challenging his order of conviction by the learned Designated Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002/Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases/VIII Additional City Civil Court at Chennai.
- The Appellant sought suspension of sentence pending appeal and the Court granted the same. However, the Court intended to examine the reason assigned by the Trial Court for declining the prayer for suspension of sentence and hence took up the matter and issued a slew of directions.
- The Trial Court dismissed the application seeking suspension of sentence on the ground that during the investigation or trial, the Accused was not arrested and was not let out on bail and that under Section 389(3), a convict shall be released on bail and his sentence shall be suspended till such time to enable him to present an appeal where such person ‘being on bail’ is sentenced or ‘he is on bail’, and since the Accused in this case was never arrested and let out on bail, he could not take recourse under Section 389(3).
DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE COURT:
- When an accused person appears before the Court on summons for a trial and has neither obtained anticipatory bail nor has been arrested and released on bail, the Magistrate shall obtain bond under Section 88 of the Cr.PC, to ensure his appearance and participation on the trial;
- The Trial Court, during the course of the trial, after hearing the arguments of the parties may also obtain bail bonds in terms of the note appended to Rule 24 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, which shall be valid for six months;
- The Trial Court shall not deny the prayer of suspension of sentence on the date of the judgment, merely on the ground that the accused, who is at large (free), has not furnished the bond, but would be well within its powers to obtain the bail bond on the date of the judgment and may suspend the sentence, provided the other conditions in Section 389(3) of the Cr.PC are satisfied.
INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 389(3) Cr.PC:
The Court held that the expression ‘being on bail’ in Section 389(3) Cr.PC has to be understood as ‘not in custody’.
RATIONALE:
- The provisions relating to execution of bond/bail bond under Sections 88 & 437-A, Cr.PC and Rule 24, Criminal Rules of Practice intend to ensure that the accused appears before the Court/binds himself to appear before the Court and participates in the Trial/judicial process and when the accused promptly appears before the Court and participates in the trial, not obtaining a bail/not executing a bond cannot go to his disadvantage while seeking suspension of his sentence.
- Merely because the Court has not required the accused to execute bail bonds, the accused shall not be prejudiced as these provisions are only to ensure appearance and the hyper-technical approach adopted by the trial Court is contrary to bail jurisprudence, besides causing injustice to the accused for no fault of his.
- Even otherwise, the trial Court had the option to require the accused to execute bail bonds as stipulated under the Criminal Rules of Practice even on the date of judgment. In any case, the suspension of sentence can also be granted subject to the execution of bail bonds with or without sureties.
CASES REFERRED:
Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation & anr., [Misc Application No. 1849/2021 in SLP (Crl) No. 5191/2021]
(Court need not require bail application while considering application U/S 88 Cr.PC);
Kumar Vs State of TN [2014 (2) LW (Crl) 789] &
Indian Bank Association and others Vs Union of India [2014 (2) LW 400]
(In private complaint cases, when the accused appears, the Court should take a bond from him under Section 88 Cr.PC).
COUNSELS:
For Petitioner: Mr. V.S Venkatesh;
For Respondent: Mr. N. Ramesh, Special Public Prosecutor;
Amicus Curiae: Mr. E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor
Date of order: 25.03.2024
(This is a case summary and not an opinion piece.)
Kommentare