SAMBHU BISWAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY judgment dated 11.1.2000 passed by the learned trial Court, appellant/petitioner was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life and pay certain amount of fine. By an order dated 17.2.2000, we admitted this appeal against the said judgment of conviction and sentence.

(2.) NOW under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appellant has prayed for suspension of execution of sentences and to release him on bail pending disposal of appeal.

(3.) THIS is a sensational case as it relates to murder of a Police Officer at midnight when the deceased was travelling on a motor-bike as a pillion rider along with P.W.1 (informant) who is also a Police Officer. We consider it necessary to pass a reasoned order in view of sub-section (1) of Section 389 read with sub-section (4) thereof. Sub-section (1) of Section 389 provides that 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 released on bail, or on his own bond. Sub-section (4) thereof further provides that when the appellant is ultimately sentenced to imprisonment for a term or to imprisonment for life, the time during which he is so released shall be excluded in computing the term for which he is so sentenced. Therefore, a combined reading of sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 389 of the Code makes the legislative intention abundantly clear that if there are good reasons for suspending the sentences including imprisonment for life, such order suspending the sentence can certainly be passed pending disposal of the appeal. Of course, the reasons must be recorded in writing in the order itself. This is the only statutory requirement which must be satisfied before such an order can be passed by the Appellate Court Traditional approach of the Courts to intuitively reject such a prayer for bail merely because the applicant has been sentenced to life imprisonment without giving due regard to other relevant factors like prima facie merit of the appeal, our inability to dispose of such appeal for a decade or more it must be abandoned now. Apex Court in Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1978(1) SCC 579, has cautioned us by observing that "Courts have often acted intuitively or reacted traditionally, so much so the fate of applicants for bail at the High Court level and in the Supreme Court, has largely hinged on the hunch of the Bench as an expression of 'Judicial discretion'. A scientific treatment is the desideration".