Observing that extreme delay in listening to an attraction towards the conviction entitles a convict to the good thing about a suspension of a sentence, the Supreme Courtroom has put aside an order of the Odisha Excessive Courtroom, which refused to droop the life sentence of a homicide convict, whose attraction towards the conviction filed in 2016 is but to be disposed of by the Odisha Excessive Courtroom.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma clarified that despite the fact that a person is convicted for committing a heinous offence like homicide, their entitlement to hunt a suspension of sentence can’t be discarded, particularly when there’s an enormous delay in listening to an attraction towards the conviction, and no cogent grounds being dropped at resolve in any other case.
The appellant, Muna Bisoi, was convicted by a Classes Courtroom for offences underneath Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Homicide), and Part 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Appellant filed an attraction towards his conviction in 2016 earlier than the Orissa Excessive Courtroom. By the point the Excessive Courtroom thought of his software for suspension of sentence on October 22, 2025, Appellant had been in custody for greater than 11 years. The Excessive Courtroom declined to completely droop the sentence however granted him interim bail for 3 months (expiring January 22, 2026) as a result of extended delay.
Simply earlier than this interim interval expired, Appellant approached the Supreme Courtroom, difficult the Excessive Courtroom’s refusal to completely droop his sentence through the pendency of the attraction.
Setting apart the impugned resolution, the bench made the Excessive Courtroom’s interim bail order absolute, “by suspending the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the Classes Courtroom…”
In help, the Courtroom referenced Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 291, the place the Courtroom deprecated the follow of not releasing the convicts on bail, whereas their appeals towards the conviction have been stored pending for years.
“It will certainly be a travesty of justice to maintain an individual in jail for a interval of 5 or 6 years for an offence which is finally discovered to not have been dedicated by him. Can the Courtroom ever compensate him for his incarceration which is discovered to be unjustified? Would it not be simply in any respect for the Courtroom to inform an individual: “We’ve got admitted your attraction as a result of we expect you might have a prima facie case, however sadly we’ve got no time to listen to your attraction for fairly just a few years and, due to this fact, till we hear your attraction, you will need to stay in jail, despite the fact that it’s possible you’ll be harmless?” What confidence would such administration of justice encourage within the thoughts of the general public?…It’s, due to this fact, completely important that the follow which this Courtroom has been following prior to now should be reconsidered and as long as this Courtroom isn’t able to listen to the attraction of an accused inside an affordable time period, the Courtroom ought to ordinarily, until there are cogent grounds for performing in any other case, launch the accused on bail in instances the place particular go away has been granted to the accused to attraction towards his conviction and sentence.”, the Courtroom had noticed in Kashmira Singh.
Endorsing the views expressed by the Courtroom in 1977 in Kashmira Singh, the bench noticed :
“Taking into account that nothing is on file to point that delay in disposal of the attraction is attributable to the appellant and giving due consideration to what this Courtroom in Kashmira Singh (supra) noticed with regard to the need of reconsidering the follow of denying bail to homicide convicts languishing in custody for five-six years, we’re inclined to permit the attraction by suspending the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the Classes Courtroom and to make the interim order absolute”
Resultantly, the attraction was allowed. The Excessive Courtroom was directed “to resolve the attraction as early as attainable, ideally inside a interval of six months from the date of receipt of a replica of this order.”
Trigger Title: MUNA BISOI VERSUS STATE OF ODISHA
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 176
Click on right here to obtain judgment
Look:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Haraprasad Sahu, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Ms. Bharti Tyagi, AOR Ms. Vishakha Raghuram, Adv. Mr. Tarun Bhati, Adv. Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv.
