Sajjad Ali Khan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 469 of 1999
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 762 of 1999)
(Appeal by Special Leave granted by this Court by its order dated 23rd April, 1999 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crimi-nal) No. 762 of 1999 against the Order dated the 11th January, 1999 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Misc. No. 172 of 1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 1998 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 2nd/4th May, 1998 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1991, First Information Report No. 189 of 1990, Police Sta-tion, Parliament Street, New Delhi).
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 762 of 1999)
(Appeal by Special Leave granted by this Court by its order dated 23rd April, 1999 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crimi-nal) No. 762 of 1999 against the Order dated the 11th January, 1999 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Misc. No. 172 of 1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 1998 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 2nd/4th May, 1998 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1991, First Information Report No. 189 of 1990, Police Sta-tion, Parliament Street, New Delhi).
Petitioner: Sajjad Ali Khan
Respondent: State (NCT of Delhi)
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 469 of 1999
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 762 of 1999)
(Appeal by Special Leave granted by this Court by its order dated 23rd April, 1999 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crimi-nal) No. 762 of 1999 against the Order dated the 11th January, 1999 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Misc. No. 172 of 1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 1998 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 2nd/4th May, 1998 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1991, First Information Report No. 189 of 1990, Police Sta-tion, Parliament Street, New Delhi).
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 762 of 1999)
(Appeal by Special Leave granted by this Court by its order dated 23rd April, 1999 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crimi-nal) No. 762 of 1999 against the Order dated the 11th January, 1999 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Misc. No. 172 of 1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 1998 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 2nd/4th May, 1998 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1991, First Information Report No. 189 of 1990, Police Sta-tion, Parliament Street, New Delhi).
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 23, 1999
Appearances:
Mr. D.D. Thakur, Senior Advocate, (M/s. B.A. Ranganathan, Mr. N.N. Bhatt, Ms. M. Bhatia and Mr. J.B. Dadachamji, Advocates with him) for the Appellant.
Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General of India, (M/s. Ashok Bhan, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma and Ms. Neera Gupta, Advo-cates with him) for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION LAW
Article 136 – Special leave petition – Appellant awarded 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II, IPC – Appeal likely to become infructuous by the time, taken for hearing- Release, of no graver consequence. Held that sentence be suspended pending appeal.(Para 2)
Article 136 – Special leave petition – Appellant awarded 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II, IPC – Appeal likely to become infructuous by the time, taken for hearing- Release, of no graver consequence. Held that sentence be suspended pending appeal.(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard. As the conviction is of the offence under Section 304 Part-II for which a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years has been granted, we feel that unless the sentence is suspended, the appeal is likely to become infructuous by the time the appeal reaches the final board for consideration. In such a situation the High Court should have considered the necessity of suspending the sentence, unless releasing the accused will be of graver consequences. In this case we are not told of any such serious consequence befalling the State. Hence this is a fit case where sentence can be suspended in view of the limited quantum of sentence awarded on the appellant. We, therefore, suspend the sentence and direct the appellant to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, Mr. S. Gaur, New Delhi.
3. Appeal is disposed of.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard. As the conviction is of the offence under Section 304 Part-II for which a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years has been granted, we feel that unless the sentence is suspended, the appeal is likely to become infructuous by the time the appeal reaches the final board for consideration. In such a situation the High Court should have considered the necessity of suspending the sentence, unless releasing the accused will be of graver consequences. In this case we are not told of any such serious consequence befalling the State. Hence this is a fit case where sentence can be suspended in view of the limited quantum of sentence awarded on the appellant. We, therefore, suspend the sentence and direct the appellant to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, Mr. S. Gaur, New Delhi.
3. Appeal is disposed of.
