Courts Answerable To Victims Of Crimes Too: Madras High Court Refuses To Suspend Sentence Of A+ Category History Sheeter

The Madras High Court has held that the Courts are obligated to protect the rights of the accused persons and protect their personal liberty pending disposal of the criminal appeal, and at the same time, the Courts are also answerable to the victims. 

It dismissed a second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail preferred by a petitioner convicted to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for the seizure of 42 kilograms of Ganja.

Taking judicial notice of the petitioner's extensive criminal antecedents—comprising 23 pending cases, including seven active murder trials—the Court held that the State's apprehension regarding the petitioner’s non-availability was reasonable, as official police records revealed a persistent history of non-cooperation and habitual absconding to intentionally delay trial proceedings.

The Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi held, "The Courts are obligated to protect the rights of the accused persons and protect their personal liberty pending disposal of the criminal appeal. At the same time, the Courts are also answerable to the victims in the murder cases, wherein the right to life of those victims was allegedly taken away by the petitioner and other accused."

Advocate M.A. Gouthaman appeared for the Petitioner, while Government Advocate V. Moushika appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The prosecution case arose from an incident where the respondent police intercepted a vehicle and recovered two gunny bags containing 21 parcels of contraband, weighing a total of 42 kilograms of Ganja, from the possession of the co-accused. The co-accused reportedly disclosed that they operated under the leadership of the petitioner, frequently traveling to Andhra Pradesh to procure the contraband, storing it in Chennai, and distributing it to individuals as directed by the petitioner.

Consequently, the petitioner was tried before the learned Judge, Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and was convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The trial court sentenced him to undergo 14 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. Aggrieved by the conviction, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal and subsequently filed the instant second application seeking suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail after his initial application was dismissed by the High Court.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioner contended that the mandatory provisions under Sections 42(2), 50(1), and 57 of the NDPS Act were completely violated by the law enforcement authorities. It was argued that no independent witnesses were examined, severe contradictions existed in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and no contraband was directly recovered from the personal possession of the petitioner.

It was further contended that there was an unexplained delay of 39 days in sending the samples to the court and that the sampling process violated the settled statutory procedure. Placing reliance on Apex Court precedents, the counsel urged that the petitioner had a bright prospect of succeeding in the main appeal and that mere criminal antecedents could not form the sole basis to deny bail, especially when the petitioner had already suffered incarceration for nearly four years.

Per contra, the State vehemently opposed the grant of bail, highlighting that the petitioner was a designated "A+ Category History Sheeter" and a notorious gang leader involved in intense gang rivalry. It was brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner had 23 criminal cases pending against him, out of which seven cases were registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the offence of murder. The State contended that the petitioner and his associates were highly non-cooperative, habitually absconded to evade the process of law, and that his release would gravely jeopardize the trial of the other pending heinous offences.

Observations and Findings of the Court

The Court observed that suspension of sentence post-conviction was a discretionary power to be exercised judiciously and did not constitute a vested right of the convict. It was held that unlike pre-trial bail, the presumption of innocence did not apply after a full-fledged trial culminated in a finding of guilt by a competent court.

It was emphasized that for an order of suspension of sentence to be passed in NDPS matters, strong, compelling, and sufficient reasons had to be explicitly recorded, keeping the interest of public policy in view.

The Court further took judicial notice of the official reports submitted by senior police officials, which revealed that multiple murder trials against the petitioner had been severely delayed because the petitioner and the co-accused consistently failed to cooperate and habitually went into hiding.

It was also reiterated that citizens were scared to lead a peaceful life and heinous offences were obstructions in the establishment of a well-ordered society, the Courts play an even more important role, and the burden is heavy and emphasized on the need to have a proper analysis of the criminal antecedents of the accused.

The Court also said that while the personal liberty of an appellant pending appeal was an important consideration, the judiciary was equally answerable to the victims of heinous crimes whose right to life was allegedly extinguished by the accused.

"No doubt, the petitioner is in jail for nearly 4 years in this case as pointed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the appeal filed by him though admitted by this Court on 12.06.2024 has not been taken up for final disposal. Hence, his personal liberty has been curtailed to some extent. However, the petitioner is also implicated in 23 other cases, out of which, seven murder cases are pending for trial. The cases as far back as 2015 are pending for more than 10 years for want of appearance of accused and due to delay caused by the investigating agency", the Court said.

Consequently, the Court held that the apprehension of the State regarding the petitioner's non-availability for subsequent trials was well-founded and reasonable. Finding no strong or compelling circumstances or any substantial change in circumstances to warrant judicial intervention, the Court dismissed the application for suspension of sentence.

Cause Title: Saba @ Sabarathinam v. State of Tamil Nadu [Neutral Citation:2026:MHC:2302]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate M.A. Gouthaman 

Respondent: Government Advocate V. Moushika

Click here to read/download the Order