Court is not powerless to grant relief of suspension of sentence and bail pending an appeal: Supreme Court

In Narcotic Control Bureau vs Lakhwinder Singh 2025 INSC 190, Supreme Court's division bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed:"in our view, if a case is made out for the grant of suspension of sentence and/or belt in deserving cases on merits, the Court is not powerless to grant relief of suspension of sentence and bail pending an appeal, even if an accused has not undergone half of the sentence. There cannot be a rule of thumb that a convict cannot be released on bail pending an appeal against conviction unless he has undergone half of substantive sentence. In the case of fixed term sentences, if the Courts start adopting rigid approach, in  a number of cases, till the appeal reaches the stage of the final hearing, the accused would undergo the entire sentence. This will be a violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, it will defeat the right of appeal" in case related to offence under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 

It pointed out that "the Appellate Court is bound by constraints of Section 17 of the NDPS Act while considering the prayer for the grant of bail during the pendency of an appeal. However, if, in the facts of the case, an accused has undergone substantial part of the substantive sentence and, considering the pendency of criminal appeals, his appeal is not likely to be heard before the accused undergoes the entire sentence the Appellate Court can exercise the over of releasing the scouted on bail pending the appeal. If the relief of bail is denied in such a factual situation only on the grounds of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it will amount to the violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

The Court concluded: "the appeal preferred by the respondent is not likely to be heard before he undergoes the entire sentence. He has already undergone a substantial part of his 10-year sentence. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the facts of the case. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, if the respondent misuses the liberty granted to him under the impugned order, the appellant can always apply for cancellation of bail."

Notably, Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan, Punjab & Haryana High Court  had granted relief of suspension of sentence and bail to the respondent/accused pending an appeal against the conviction. The respondent was convicted for an offence punishable under the NDPS Act. The substantive sentence of the respondent is 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. In the appeal of the year 2021, the High Court had noted that the respondent had undergone incarceration for a period of 4 ½ years out of the fixed term sentence of 10 years. As the appeal was not likely to be heard before the completion of the sentence, the High Court had granted relief of suspension of sentence and bail to the respondent.

The judgement authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka was delivered on January 29, 2025. The case was filed on June 30, 2021.