In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to a 70-year-old visually impaired man while criticizing the Madhya Pradesh High Court for its “casual approach” in handling the case. The decision was made in the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8388/2024, titled “Bherulal versus The State of Madhya Pradesh.”
Background of the Case
Bherulal, the petitioner, was convicted by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh, for offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 5,000. After his conviction, Bherulal filed an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 5480 of 2023) in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, along with applications to suspend his sentence and release him on bail pending the appeal’s final disposal. The High Court rejected these applications.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, addressed several crucial legal points in this case:
1. Suspension of Fixed-Term Sentences: The court emphasized that “if the sentence imposed by the trial court is for a fixed term, then ordinarily the appellate court should consider the plea for suspension of sentence liberally, unless there are any exceptional circumstances”. The bench criticized the High Court for not providing any reasons for declining the suspension of sentence.
2. Age and Health Considerations: The court took note of Bherulal’s advanced age (70 years) and his deteriorating health condition, particularly his 90% vision impairment.
3. Time Served: The bench considered that Bherulal had already served two years of his four-year sentence.
4. High Court’s Approach: The Supreme Court strongly criticized the High Court’s handling of the case, stating, “We take notice of the fact that stereo type orders are passed by the High Courts without any application of mind”. The court further added that “Such casual approach of the High Court has led to the filing of this Special Leave Petition before the highest court of the country”.
Court’s Decision and Observations
The Supreme Court issued notice on the Special Leave Petition and ordered Bherulal’s release on bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. The bench made several noteworthy observations:
1. On the High Court’s approach: “The High Court could have easily considered the plea for suspension of sentence in the first instance itself”.
2. On the unnecessary litigation: “This litigation could have been easily avoided had the High Court applied the correct principles of law governing the suspension of sentence of fixed terms of imprisonment”.
3. On the petitioner’s condition: “There is nothing on record to indicate that his release on bail pending appeal would thwart the course of justice”.
Also Read
The case was argued by Mr. Anup Kumar, Advocate on Record, along with Mrs. Neha Jaiswal, Mr. Shivam Kumar, Ms. Pragya Choudhary, and Ms. Shruti Singh representing the petitioner.
