The Supreme Court may have recalled its strictures against a Allahabad High Court judge on Friday but in another case, the Court criticized an order from the same High Court which had denied suspension of a fixed-term sentence without applying settled legal principles.
Relying on Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai & Others v. State of Gujarat (1999), which mandates liberal consideration of suspension applications in appeals against fixed-term sentences save in exceptional cases, the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan noted that the High Court failed to assess whether denial was justified.
In the underlying appeal (Aasif @ Pasha v. State of U.P. & Ors.,), the convict was sentenced by the trial court to four years’ rigorous imprisonment for offences under the POCSO Act, various sections of the Indian Penal Code (354, 354A, 323, 504) and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, with concurrent terms. His Section 389 CrPC application for suspension was summarily dismissed by the High Court on the ground of heinousness, without weighing the established test for suspension. Advocate on Record Mohd Fuzail Khan appeared for the petitioner.
The bench said it was disappointed that yet another order of the Allahabad High Court shows it had overlooked well-settled principles. It said the High Court should have identified the subject matter at hand, isolated the legal issue and considered the litigant’s appeal and then applied the correct legal principles.
Holding the High Court’s approach “unfortunate,” the Supreme Court set aside the order and remanded the appeal for fresh consideration. It directed the High Court to grant suspension unless “compelling circumstances” show that release would be against public interest. The hearing must conclude, and a decision be rendered, within 15 days.