The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a rigid rule requiring a convict to undergo half of their sentence before being eligible for bail during an appeal cannot be imposed. If the case merits relief, the appellate court has the authority to grant bail or suspend the sentence.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made this observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) against a High Court order suspending the sentence of a convict. The convict was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and had already served 4.5 years in jail. The NCB argued that the High Court had no authority to suspend the sentence as the accused had not yet completed half of his term.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, representing the NCB, referred to the 1994 Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee case (1994) 6 SCC 731, which suggested that undertrial prisoners should be granted bail only if they had served at least half their sentence. The ASG emphasized that since the convict had not completed 5 years (half of 10 years), he should not be eligible for bail.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that the directions in the 1994 judgment were a one-time measure to address the problem of overcrowding in prisons. They were not meant to restrict the power of courts to grant bail in other cases.
The Supreme Court held:
"This judgment does not take away the power of the Court to grant regular bail even if the period undergone by a prisoner is less than what is provided in the said judgment. If we interpret it otherwise, courts would be powerless to grant bail or suspend sentences, even if the case merits such relief."
The court further clarified:
"There cannot be a rule of thumb that a convict cannot be released on bail pending appeal unless he has undergone half of the substantive sentence."
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Disability Certified by Medical Board Cannot Be Reduced Without Re-assessment
The Supreme Court emphasized that adopting a rigid rule in fixed-term sentences would mean that many convicts would serve their full sentence before their appeal is heard, leading to a violation of their Article 21 rights under the Constitution.
"If courts adopt a strict approach, in many cases, convicts will serve their full sentence before their appeals are heard. This would violate their right to personal liberty and defeat the right to appeal."
The ASG also argued that bail in NDPS cases is restricted by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stricter conditions for bail. However, the Supreme Court clarified that in cases where:
The accused has already undergone a significant portion of their sentence.
The appeal is unlikely to be heard soon.
The delay in hearing the appeal would mean the convict completes their entire sentence before a verdict.
Read Also:- Compassionate Appointments: Supreme Court Emphasizes Hand-to-Mouth" Cases
The Appellate Court has the discretion to grant bail in such situations, despite the statutory restrictions under Section 37.
"If bail is denied solely on the ground of Section 37, despite the convict having undergone a substantial part of the sentence, it will violate the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution."
Since the High Court found that the respondent had already served a substantial part of his sentence and his appeal was unlikely to be heard soon, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order. The appeal by the NCB was dismissed.
"Since the respondent has undergone a significant portion of his 10-year sentence and his appeal is unlikely to be heard soon, there is no reason to interfere with the High Court’s order."
However, the Court noted that if the respondent misuses the bail, the NCB can file for cancellation of bail.
