MADAN SUBB Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No.02 of 2024 is an application under Sec. 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by the Petitioner/convict seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail till the final disposal of the Appeal.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was arrested in connection with this case on 3/9/2016 and enlarged on bail on 9/9/2016, vide Order in Crl. Misc. Case (Vig.) Bail No.60 of 2016 (Madan Kumar Subba vs. State of Sikkim) by the Court of the Special Judge, P.C. Act, East Sikkim, at Gangtok. The bail was granted by imposing certain terms and conditions. Thereafter, during the course of trial, the Petitioner consistently attended the Court proceedings without violating any terms and conditions laid down by the Learned Trial Court. That, he was convicted vide the Judgment in ST (VIG) Case No.02 of 2019, dtd. 21/2/2024, for the offences punishable under Sec. 420 read with Sec. 34 and Sec. 120B(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and also under Sec. 13(1)(c) and (d) punishable under Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three years under each of the Ss. that he was convicted for, along with direction to pay fine of ? 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only, each, under each of the convicted Ss. . Default clause of imprisonment on non-payment of fine was also imposed. That, thereafter, he was enlarged on bail by the Learned Trial Court in terms of Sec. 389(3) of the Cr.P.C. An Appeal against the impugned Judgment was filed before this Court which was admitted, however, the petition for suspension of sentence and enlargement of the Petitioner on bail was rejected, vide Order of this Court dtd. 26/4/2024 in I.A. No.01 of 2024, in Crl.A. No.11 of 2024, inter alia on grounds that the Petitioner/Convict had flouted the order of the Learned Trial Court with impunity, as sixty days allowed to him to file the Appeal and obtain bail from the Appellate Court was not adhered to and he continued to remain at large for almost sixty-six days. That, the circumstance arose out of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner being remiss and the fault was not that of the convict who is an elderly person, aged about 66 years. That, he is a chronic patient of diabetes and is under medication and constant review. That, original copies of the medical report have also been filed herein. That, although the Petitioner is from Darjeeling, West Bengal, there is no risk of him violating the terms and conditions, if enlarged on bail, as his conduct before the Learned Trial Court would reveal. That, he is a respectable citizen and has no reason to abscond. That, in fact, his detention in prison would prejudice his family as his son and daughter who were working in the State of West Bengal had to leave their service in order to be with their mother in Sikkim, who is alone after the incarceration of the Petitioner. Hence, the Petition be considered sympathetically on the grounds raised and the Petitioner be released on bail pending the Appeal and his sentence be suspended accordingly.

(3.) Per contra, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that he has no objection to the petition as the grounds advanced by the Learned Counsel are reasonable. That, the Petitioner is a senior citizen, ailing and in requirement of constant medical supervision, besides admittedly, it is the fault of the Counsel for not taking timely steps in filing the petition under Sec. 389 of the Cr.P.C. and the Appeal. That, he be enlarged by imposition of certain conditions.