The Supreme Court reiterated the legal principle that appellate courts should liberally suspend sentences of fixed short-term imprisonment during the pendency of an appeal to prevent the appeal itself from becoming infructuous. It held that denial requires recording exceptional, compelling reasons why release would be against public interest.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, Aasif @ Pasha, was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court in Meerut for offences under the POCSO Act, IPC (Sections 354, 354Kha, 323, 504), and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The sentences, which included terms of four years of rigorous imprisonment for the major charges, were ordered to run concurrently. Dissatisfied with the conviction, the appellant filed a criminal appeal before the Allahabad High Court. Pending the final hearing of his appeal, he filed an application under Section 389 of the CrPC seeking suspension of his sentence and release on bail. The High Court declined this plea, emphasizing the “immoral and heinous” nature of the offence and the appellant’s complicity, concluding there were insufficient grounds for bail during the appeal’s pendency. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court failed to apply the settled legal principles governing the suspension of a fixed-term sentence, which risked rendering his substantive right of appeal meaningless if he were to complete his jail term before the appeal could be heard.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case began with the appellant’s conviction and sentencing by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) in Meerut. Following this conviction, the appellant filed a criminal appeal (No. 8689 of 2024) before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the verdict. Concurrently, he filed an application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the suspension of his sentence and release on bail during the pendency of this appeal. The High Court, vide its order dated May 29, 2025, dismissed this application for suspension of sentence. This dismissal by the High Court was then challenged before the Supreme Court of India by way of a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11361 of 2025, which was converted into the present Criminal Appeal No. 3409 of 2025 upon the grant of leave. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the matter back to it for a fresh consideration of the suspension application.
READ ALSO :Quality Over Quantity: Supreme Court Reiterates a Single Witness Must Be “Wholly Reliable” to Convict
Court Observation:
In its observations, the Supreme Court expressed disappointment with the High Court’s approach, noting a failure to apply well-settled legal principles governing the suspension of a fixed-term sentence. The Court authoritatively reiterated that unless exceptional circumstances exist, appellate courts must liberally consider suspending short sentences to prevent the right of appeal from being rendered futile by the efflux of time. It emphasized that for a fixed term of four years, which could be spent in custody before the appeal is heard, denial of bail requires compelling reasons to be recorded, demonstrating that the appellant’s release would be against public interest. The Court clarified that the correct approach is not to re-appreciate evidence at this stage but to ensure the appeal right remains meaningful.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and remanded the matter back for a fresh consideration of the appellant’s application for suspension of sentence. The Court directed the High Court to rehear the application at the earliest and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the correct principles of law within fifteen days from the date of the Supreme Court’s order, ensuring the appellant’s right to appeal remains substantive and meaningful.
Case Details:
Case Title: Aasif @ Pasha vs. The State of U.P. & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 944 Criminal Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 3409 of 2025 Date of Judgement: 6th August, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Download The Judgement Here