LILADHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT : Shri R.C. Singh, Counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.N. Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE expression 'the Tribunal shall have power to grant bail to any person accused of an offence and in military custody' indicates that the section contemplates that the accused has yet not been convicted for any offence. This meaning also appears to flow out of the language of the proviso to sub -section (3) of section 15. Moreover the provision would be applicable if the accused is in military custody and not in custody of a Criminal Court. The question that then arises is whether the power of bail can be exercised under the provisions of section , (e) or (f).

(3.) ORDINARILY release of a person in custody on parole would not require him to furnish surety. If the Tribunal therefore intends to release a convict temporarily during the pendency of appeal or application on his furnishing sureties or does not intend that period of release should be counted against the sentence, grant of parole would not serve the purpose unless conditions are imposed in the order. It is to be noticed that the decision of the Constitution Bench in the Sunil Fulchand Shah case was rendered in the context of a law of preventive detention namely, C.O.F.E.P.O.S.A. A person in custody as a measure of preventive detention on the one hand and a person taken into custody to serve out the sentence on conviction on the other hand stands on different footing. A person who has been convicted has to serve out the sentence awarded to him as a punishment. The Court may not direct his temporary release during the pendency of an appeal or original application to be counted in the sentence. The purpose of prevention detention is to prevent the detenue from committing an offence or unlawful act during the period given in the order.