Trial Court Is Not Empowered To Grant Bail After Conviction And Sentencing Order Has Been Affirmed By District Appellate Court: Patna HC
The Patna High Court held that the Trial Court is not empowered to grant bail to a convict if the District Appellate Court has affirmed their conviction judgment and sentencing order.
The Court emphasized that per Section 389 subsection 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the Appellate Court has the power to suspend a sentence while an appeal is pending and allow the Appellant to be released on bail. However, the Court noted that there is no provision in the CrPC that permits the District Appellate Court to grant bail after an appeal has been concluded and the conviction and sentence have been confirmed.
“In view of the aforesaid discussions, question no. (i) is answered in negative holding that the trial court is not empowered to grant bail to the convicted person after the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court has been affirmed by the District Appellate Court”, Justice Anil Kumar Sinha observed.
Advocate Chhote Lal Mishra appeared for the Petitioners, Additional Public Prosecutor Akshay Lal Pandit appeared for the Respondent, and Advocate Vikram Deo Singh appeared for the Informant.
A Criminal Revision was filed before the Court challenging the judgment of the Sessions Court, wherein the conviction judgment and sentencing order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) were affirmed. The SDM had sentenced all the Petitioners to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“Three questions arise for determination by this Court which are as follows:-
(i) whether the trial court is empowered to grant bail to the convicted persons after the judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been affirmed by the District Appellate Court?
(ii) whether the District Appellate Court can suspend the sentence and grant bail after the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court has been affirmed by it?
(iii) whether as per Rule 57A of PHC Rules, the revsionist/petitioner has to surrender to custody in the concerned court before the revision petition is posted for admission?”, the Court observed.
After reviewing Section 389 of the CrPC, the Court held that Section 389 subsection 1 authorizes the Appellate Court to temporarily halt the execution of a sentence or order being appealed and release the Appellant on bail if they are in custody. Section 389 subsection 3 empowers the Trial Court to suspend the sentence and grant bail if the convicted person intends to appeal their conviction and sentence, the Court observed.
“Thus, it is clear that power under Section 389(3) can be exercised by the trial court if the court is satisfied that the convicted person intends to present an appeal against conviction and sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not place any other provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure under which the trial court can suspend the sentence and grant bail after the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court has been affirmed by the District appellate court and the records have been sent back to the trial court”, the Court noted.
The Court reiterated that Section 389 of the CrPC deals with the suspension of sentences and applies only to the period during which an appeal is pending. The Appellate Court may only suspend the sentence for the duration of the appeal. When the appeal is concluded, the suspension order becomes part of the final judgment and order.
The Court noted, “Accordingly, I arrive at the conclusion that once the District appellate court decides the appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, it becomes functus officio and ceases to have any power in the matter to suspend the sentence, or grant bail for certain period to enable the accused to approach the High Court by filing revision application to obtain appropriate orders. Consequently, the question no.(ii) is answered in negative and it is held that District appellate court has got no power to suspend the sentence and grant bail after judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court has been affirmed by it”.
In addition, the Court, while referring to Rule 57 of the Rules of Patna High Court (PHC), reiterated that a convicted individual must surrender to the custody of the relevant Court before their revision application can be considered for admission.
“It is made clear that if the surrender certificate is not filed by the petitioners within the aforesaid period of four weeks, the instant revision application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench”, the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Petitioners to file the surrender certificate within four weeks from the date of the Judgment.
Cause Title: Shivjag Paswan v The State of Bihar
