2022 (1) TMI 1471 - HC - Indian Laws

Right to speedy trial - Suspension of the remaining sentence of the applicant-appellant during the pendency of the appeal - selling poppy husk in the States of Punjab and Haryana, after purchasing the same from Rajasthan - primary submission of applicant is that the applicant having undergone 08 years 11 months 19 days of substantive sentence of 12 years, ought to be considered for suspension of the rest of his sentence as the pending appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future in view of the COVID-19 pandemic - HELD THAT - That the right to a speedy trial and expeditious disposal of the appeal flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY VERSUS R.S. NAYAK 1991 (12) TMI 274 - SUPREME COURT held 'An objection based on denial of Right to speedy trial and for relief on that account, should first be addressed to the High Court. Even if the High Court entertains such a plea, ordinarily it should not stay the proceedings, except in a case of grave and exceptional nature. Such proceedings in High Court must, however, be disposed of on a priority basis.' In the recent case of MOSSA KOYA KP VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2021 (12) TMI 1395 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted the concession of bail to the applicant who had undergone 08 years of his substantial sentence of 10 years. The applicant in the present case is a prior convict, and therefore, his case would be an exception to the ratio of the law laid down in DALER SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB 2006 (12) TMI 576 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT . However, on having examined the factual matrix in the case of the applicant, it is required to suspend the rest of the sentence of the applicant. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the applicant ought to be released on bail having undergone 08 years 11 months and 19 days of his substantive sentence of 12 years - the present application is allowed and the rest of the sentence imposed on the applicant-appellant namely Rajender Singh is suspended subject to his furnishing necessary surety bonds/bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Fatehabad.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C.
2. Alleged violation of procedural safeguards under Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
3. Consideration of prior convictions in bail applications.
4. Right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. Impact of COVID-19 on the hearing of appeals.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Suspension of Sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C.:
The applicant sought suspension of his remaining sentence during the pendency of the appeal. The applicant had been convicted under Section 15(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to twelve years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The court considered the applicant's substantial completion of his sentence, having already served approximately 09 years of the 12-year sentence. The court acknowledged the guidelines from previous judgments, such as 'Daler Singh vs. State of Punjab,' which allow for the suspension of sentences in cases where the convict has served a significant portion of their sentence, especially when the appeal is unlikely to be heard soon.

2. Alleged Violation of Procedural Safeguards under Section 42 of the NDPS Act:
The applicant argued that there was a violation of procedural safeguards, particularly the absence of independent witnesses during the search and discrepancies in prosecution witnesses' statements. While these arguments were noted, the court did not delve deeply into these issues as the primary focus was on the suspension of the sentence due to the delay in hearing the appeal.

3. Consideration of Prior Convictions in Bail Applications:
The State opposed the suspension of the sentence, citing the applicant's prior convictions. The court recognized the applicant's previous convictions but noted that he had already served the sentence for one and was granted bail in another. The court emphasized that while prior convictions are relevant, they should not indefinitely bar the applicant from bail, especially when the appeal is delayed.

4. Right to a Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India:
The court reiterated that the right to a speedy trial and expeditious disposal of appeals is a fundamental right under Article 21. Delayed trials or appeals can entitle an accused or convict to the suspension of their sentence. The court cited several precedents, emphasizing that undue delay, not attributable to the accused, could justify bail or suspension of the sentence.

5. Impact of COVID-19 on the Hearing of Appeals:
The court acknowledged the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the judicial process, noting that the appeal was unlikely to be heard soon due to pandemic-related delays. This factor was significant in the court's decision to suspend the applicant's sentence, as the pandemic has exacerbated existing delays in the judicial system.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the application for suspension of the sentence, permitting the applicant to be released on bail, subject to furnishing necessary surety bonds. The court emphasized that if the applicant committed a similar offense while on bail, the State could seek cancellation of the bail. The court clarified that its decision should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.