Case title: 

Atul @ Ashutosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: 

2nd February 2024

Bench: 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mr. Abhay S. Oka

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Parties: 

Appellant: Atul @ Ashutosh

Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh

SUBJECT:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’) assessed the appeal before it, wherein the appellant had been denied bail by the High Court citing ‘gravity of the crime’ as the reason for denial. The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant had already served half his imprisonment sentence and should granted suspension of sentence as the ongoing appeal is expected to go beyond the duration of his entire sentence.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):

• Section 389(1)

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

• Section 489(c)

OVERVIEW:

• The appellant was found in possession of counterfeit currency notes worth Rs. 44,000/-
• The Trial court sentenced him to 5 years of rigorous punishment, with a fine of Rs. 3000/- in 2022.
• The appellant challenged the trial court’s order in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and applied for suspension of his sentence.

ISSUES RAISED:

• Whether the appellant be granted suspension of sentence considering the gravity of the offence?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:

• Appellant maintained claim of innocence, stating that he had been falsely implicated in the matter.
• The oral and documentary offence presented by the appellant was not properly assessed by the Trial court.
• The appeal does not seem likely t end anytime soon, and the appellant has already been in custody for half of his sentence. Therefore suspension should be granted.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:

• Appellant was innocent and was knowingly in possession of the fake currency notes.
• Owing to the gravity of the crime, suspension should not be granted.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

• The Supreme Court concurred with the appellant and observed that the appeal is not likely to resolve any time soon.
• It was further observed that the appellant has already undergone around 2 and a half years of his sentence.
• The Court granted the appellant bail and temporary suspension of sentence until the resolution of the appeal.

CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court opined that in cases where there are fixed term sentences and the appeal is not likely to be heard before the completion of the sentences, bail ought to be granted. Several such cases have been presented before this Court, which should not be the case. The appeal was allowed and any pending applications were disposed of by the Supreme Court.