Delhi High Court
Abdul Sami vs The State on 10 December, 2008
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.M.(Bail) No.735/2008 in Crl. Appeal No.462/2008
% Date of Decision: 10.12.2008
.... Appellant
Abdul Sami
Through Mr. R.P.Luthra, Advocate
Versus
The State .... Respondent
Through Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
This is an application by the applicant Abdul Sami for suspension
of his sentence and his release on bail during the pendency of his
appeal. The applicant was allegedly found in possession of the
counterfeit currency note and he has been convicted under Section
489C of the Indian Penal Code for a period of five years rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
The learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that the
offence under Section 489 C is bailable as defined in the First Schedule
regarding classification of offences under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
The learned counsel for the applicant has further contended
relying on Section 389 (3) that he was on bail during the trial and since
the offence for which he was convicted was a bailable, after conviction
on his intention to file an appeal, he was entitled to be released on bail,
unless there were special reason for refusing the bail for such period as
would have afforded him sufficient time to present the appeal.
In the circumstances, it is contended that since the applicant was
entitled to be released on bail as the offence under Section 489 C for
which he has been convicted is bailable, for the period, affording him
sufficient time to present the appeal, even after presentation of the
appeal, considering the facts and circumstances that there are no
special reasons for refusing bail, the sentence of the applicant be
suspended and he be released on bail. The learned counsel has also
contended that since applicant was arrested on 13th June, 2001 and in
the statement recorded on 8th June, 2001 the recovery of Rs.35,000 of
counterfeit currency was disclosed, the counterfeit money could not be
recovered from the applicant after his arrest.
The learned counsel for State, Mr. Dudeja, contends that the
special circumstances for refusing the bail in such cases would be when
there is apprehension of the applicant involving himself in the same
offence again or such a person having previous history of conviction on
the similar grounds and for similar offences.
The applicant has made a specific averment that he is not a
previous convict nor habitual offender and is a permanent resident of
Delhi and has disclosed his permanent address which fact had been
verified to be correct and he was on bail during trial. There are no
allegation of applicant exploiting the liberty granted to him in any
manner. Therefore, there are no such special circumstances which will
entail refusing of bail to him.
In the aforesaid circumstances and for the forgoing reasons, the
appellant / applicant Mr. Abdul Sami is entitled for suspension of his
remaining sentence during the pendency of appeal. Therefore, the
remaining sentence of the applicant is suspended during the pendency
of the appeal and the applicant Abdul Sami be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The appellant / applicant
shall surrender his Passport, in case he has any, and he will not leave
India without prior permission of this Court. With these directions, the
application is disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of the Court
Master and be also sent to the concerned jail authorities.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
December 10, 2008 V.K. SHALI, J.
mk
