Detailed Observation On Merits Of Case Is Not Warranted At Stage Of Suspension Of Sentence: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to two former police officials, Ashok Singh Bhadauria and Kamta Prasad Singh, who were convicted for the custodial death of the father of the Unnao rape victim.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed that “It is a settled proposition that though the Court at this stage of suspension of sentence is required to examine if there is any infirmity in the order of the conviction that renders circumference prima facie erroneous however, evidence is not to be reassessed or reanalyzed for suspend the execution of sentence. As in caution, the detailed observation on the merits of the case is not called for at this stage, as it may prejudice the case of the parties”.

Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur appeared for the Appellants, whereas Advocate Nikhil Goel appeared for the Respondent.

As per the brief facts of the case, the first Appellant (Ashok Singh Bhadauria) was found guilty of various offenses, including Sections 120B, 166, 167, 193, 201, 203, 211, 218, 323, 341, and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with a violation of Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959. The second Appellant (Kamta Prasad Singh) was convicted under Sections 120B, 166, 167, 193, 201, 203, 211, 218, 323, 341, and Section 304 of the IPC, as well as Section 3 of the Arms Act. The present applications were therefore filed, seeking suspension of the appellants' convictions, while the ongoing appeals were pending.

After considering the submission, the bench observed that during the stage of suspending a sentence, the court's role is to primarily assess whether there are any glaring errors or flaws in the conviction order. However, this process does not entail reevaluating or reanalyzing the evidence presented in the case.

The Bench noted that, in cases of conviction and custody, especially those that do not involve life sentences, the broad parameter of 50% of the actual sentence undergone can be the basis for the grant of bail.

The Bench further observed that because there were pending appeals regarding the sentences already served by the accused individuals, it was on record that an appeal in the case was admitted on July 31, 2020. However, the court has been unable to conduct the hearing for these appeals thus far.

The Bench also took note of the fact that the appellants had not misused the interim bail that had been periodically granted to them.

“According to the Nominal Roll, appellant no. 1 had served a sentence of approximately four years, eight months, and seven days, while appellant no. 2 had served a sentence of approximately four years, five months, and 28 days”, added the Bench.

Accordingly, considering the duration of the incarceration of the appellants, the High Court decided to grant bail to both.

However, the High Court directed that (i) the appellants shall attend the court hearing regularly as and when directed by the IO; (ii) the appellants shall not travel abroad without the permission of the Court; and (iii) the appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case

Cause Title: Ashok Singh Bhadauria and Ors v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2023: DHC: 6911]

Click here to read/ download the Judgment