Tapas Kumar Naskar vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

This is an application for bail under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with CRA 722 of 2016 whereby the judgement dated 10th November, 2016 and order dated November 15, 2016 passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Special Court, |Calcutta in Special Case No. 1 of 2010 in connection with G.R. Case No. 1641 thereby convicting the appellant for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 420/120B/467/468/471 IPC sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of four years for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for another six months, rigorous imprisonment for the period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for another three months, rigorous imprisonment for the period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 4678 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for another six months, rigorous imprisonment for the period of five years for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for another six months with direction that all the sentences will run concurrently have been assailed.

It is submitted by Mr. Milon Mukherjee, learned senior counsel for the appellant that the appellant is in custody since November 10, 2016 and he has suffered sentence nearly about 2 years and 1 month.

There is least chance of this appeal being heard in near future.

In support of his contention Mr. Mukherjee has referred two decisions in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat; reported in 1999 C Cr LR (SC) 247 and another case Kiran Kumar v. State of M.P.; reported in 2001 C Cr LR (SC) 6.

In Bhagwan Rama's case the accused persons were convicted and sentenced for the charge under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and they are in custody for some years and it was held thus:-

" When a convicted person is sentenced to fixed period of sentence and when he files appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate Court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of course if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when motion for expeditious hearing the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate Court finds hat due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously the appellate Court must bestow special concern in the matter of suspending the sentence. So as to make the appeal right meaningful and effective. Of course appellate Courts can impose similar conditions when bail is granted."

In Kiran Kumar v. State of M.P's case the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the suspension of the sentence pending appeal with the following observation:-

" When a person is convicted and sentenced to a short term imprisonment the normal rule is that when his appeal is pending the sentence should be suspended and rejection is only by way of exception and reason be put forward for such rejection. In such case also every endeavour should be made to have the appeal posted for early hearing and disposal. If the short-term sentence is allowed to run out during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal itself will become, for all practical purposes, infructuous so far as the appellant is concerned. It does not mean that the Appellate Court should suspend the sentence, if its consequence would be dangerous to the society or any other similar difficulties."

In consideration of the observation so made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by lending the wordings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court , I am of the view that if the short-term sentence is allowed to run out during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal itself will become , for all practical purposes, infructuous so far as the appellant is concerned and it does not mean that the appellate Court should suspend the sentence, if its consequence would be dangerous to the society or any other similar difficulties.

I find from the facts of the present case that the appellant has suffered more than ¼ of the sentence and there is least chance of the appeal being heard expeditiously.

Now considering the pendency of the old matter the appellant is admitted and be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of like amount one of whom must be local subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge concerned and further on condition that he will attend the learned Special Judge once in a month until further order.

Leave is granted appellant/petitioner to amend the cause title of the application.

Thus, CRAN 2657 of 2018 is disposed of.