blogid : 8093 postid : 1243050



  • 271 Posts

Section 389(1) of the CrPC reads as follows-
“Pending any appeal by a convicted person,the Appellate Court may,for reasons to be recorded by it in writing,order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and,also,if he is in confinement, that he be realeased on bail,or on his own bond.”
From the plain reading of the section 389(1) CrPC,it can be concluded that-
(i) The Appellate Court,which is the High Court of Patna in the present case in question,may suspend the execution of sentence during pendency of appeal before it for which convicted person has been sentenced,whether or not the convicted person is in confinement i.e.imprisonment.
(ii) If the convicted person is in confinement, then the Appellate Court may also order that the convicted person be released on bail,or on his own bond.
The well settled principle which can be extracted from this section is that firstly the suspension of sentence is must whether the convicted person is in confinement or not.So,before granting bail to the imprisoned person,his sentence must be suspended.
Now come to what has happened in one Case.One Judge of the Patna High Court granted bail to the convicted person,but without suspending sentence.Since the convicted person wanted to be reinstated in his job,he again approached to the Court and prayed to stay the conviction and sought reinstatement of job as well.Stay of conviction should actually be termed as suspension of sentence in view of section 389(1) CrPC.The Judge rejected the plea asserting that there is no cogent,sound reason to suspend the sentence.On what reasons bail is granted,sentence must be suspended first on the same reasons before granting bail.There is no need of any specific reason for suspending sentence.Specific reason must be required for reinstating job of the convicted person if possible according to law,not for suspending sentence.
What must have been done by the Judge at the time of grating bail to the convicted person,have not been done even after approaching again.The Judge has overruled.It shows lack of merits in the Judge,for which a person has to suffer.

Read Comments

Post a comment

Leave a Reply