On Wednesday, the Supreme Court once again expressed displeasure with an order of the Allahabad High Court, setting aside its refusal to suspend the sentence of a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) convict and remanding the matter for reconsideration. The Bench remarked, “The impugned order is one more from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad with which we are disappointed.”
The case concerned an appeal by Aasif alias Pasha, who had been convicted by a Special POCSO Court Section7 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act,, provisions of the the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 354, 354-Kha, 323, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a maximum term of four years, with all sentences to run concurrently. While his appeal against the conviction remains pending before the Allahabad High Court, he moved an application under Section Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking suspension of his sentence. The High Court rejected the plea, concluding that no good or sufficient grounds had been shown to warrant bail during the pendency of the appeal.
The Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons, such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously, the appellate court must show special concern in the matter of suspending the sentence so as to make the appeal right, meaningful and effective”. It added that mechanically denying suspension in such situations would render the appeal infructuous if the appellant serves out the entire sentence before the case is heard.
The Apex Court noted that this was a case involving a fixed-term sentence and not life imprisonment, and therefore attracted a different legal approach. Referring to its 1999 decision in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat, the Court reiterated that when an accused is sentenced for a fixed period and appeals under a statutory right, suspension of sentence should ordinarily be granted unless exceptional circumstances exist.
The Court found that the High Court had engaged in a detailed reiteration of the prosecution’s case and oral evidence while deciding the suspension plea, an approach it held to be legally unsound. “What the High Court did was to reiterate the entire case of the prosecution and the oral evidence which has come on record. That is not the correct approach,” the Bench said. The Court clarified that at the suspension stage, appellate courts are not expected to reappreciate the evidence or search for minor inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
While emphasising that cases involving serious offences like murder must be approached with caution, the Bench said this matter was distinguishable because the sentence was fixed at four years. “Ultimately, if 4 years are to elapse in jail the same would render the appeal infructuous and that would be travesty of justice,” it added.
The Top Court set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the case for reconsideration, directing that the application be reheard and a fresh decision rendered within 15 days. It emphasised that suspension of sentence in such cases should be denied only where compelling circumstances show that release would not serve the public interest. Delivering a parting caution, the Bench remarked, “We are once again constrained to observe that such errors creep in at the level of High Court and only because the well-settled principles of law on the subject are not applied correctly.”
Case Title: Aasif @ Pasha Vs. The State Of U.P. & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.3409/2025
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Picture Source :
