The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that prolonged pendency of criminal appeals warrants bail under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, even without adjudicating the merits of the conviction. The court emphasized that the purpose of an appeal is rendered meaningless if the appellant remains incarcerated for years without a hearing.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh granted bail pending appeal under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, suspending the remainder of the jail sentence. The relief was granted on grounds of excessive pre-appeal custody and unreasonable delay in scheduling the final hearing, without commenting on the merits of the conviction. The appellant was directed to deposit any unpaid fine and furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with a solvent surety.
Background & Facts
The appellant, Gaurav Bohrasi, was convicted under Section 109/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act. He was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment under the former and one year under the latter, along with fines. He has already served one year and seven months in custody. The appeal against conviction has been pending for an extended period, with no foreseeable date for final hearing. The appellant’s counsel contended that continued incarceration would defeat the very purpose of filing the appeal, as the sentence would be served before the appellate court could examine the legal and factual errors alleged. The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the gravity of the offences and the nature of the conviction warranted continued detention.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, permits the suspension of a sentence pending appeal solely on the ground of unreasonable delay in the hearing of the appeal, even in the absence of a prima facie case on merits.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The appellant’s counsel argued that Section 430(1) empowers the appellate court to suspend a sentence if it is satisfied that the appeal is not frivolous and that the appellant is likely to suffer undue hardship if kept in custody. The counsel cited the prolonged delay in hearing the appeal as a compelling factor, noting that the appellant had already served over 19 months and that no timeline for final disposal was available. The counsel relied on the principle that the right to a speedy appeal is implicit in Article 21 and that prolonged incarceration without adjudication violates the presumption of innocence.
For the Respondent
The State opposed the application on the ground that the offences involved possession of illegal arms and criminal conspiracy, which are serious in nature. It argued that suspension of sentence would undermine public confidence in the justice system and that the appellant had not demonstrated any error in the trial court’s findings. The State contended that bail under Section 430(1) should not be granted merely due to delay, but only when the appeal raises substantial questions of law or fact.
The Court's Analysis
The court declined to evaluate the merits of the conviction, stating that such an assessment was unnecessary for deciding the bail application. Instead, it focused on the procedural reality: the appeal had been pending without a fixed hearing date, and the appellant had already served a significant portion of his sentence. The court observed that the purpose of an appeal is to provide a meaningful remedy, and that remedy becomes illusory if the appellant remains incarcerated for years without a hearing.
"The purpose of filing an appeal would become futile if the appellant is required to serve the entire sentence before the appellate court can hear the matter."
The court held that Section 430(1) is not confined to cases where the appellant demonstrates a strong prima facie case on merits. Where the delay in hearing is substantial and the sentence is lengthy, the court has the discretion to suspend the sentence to preserve the efficacy of the appellate process. The court distinguished this from cases where delay is attributable to the appellant’s own conduct, noting that no such allegation was made here. The court also noted that the appellant had served nearly two years and that the fine could be secured through a bond, thereby mitigating any risk of non-compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a clear precedent for granting bail under Section 430(1) BNS, 2023, when appellate delays are unreasonable, even in serious offences. Practitioners can now rely on this ruling to argue for suspension of sentence where appeals have been pending beyond a reasonable time without a fixed hearing date. The decision shifts the focus from the strength of the appeal’s merits to the procedural fairness of the appellate timeline. However, the ruling does not create an automatic right to bail; courts will still consider the nature of the offence, the appellant’s conduct, and the likelihood of flight. The requirement to deposit fines and furnish a solvent surety reinforces that bail is conditional and not absolute. This precedent is particularly relevant in high-volume criminal courts where delays are systemic.
