Shenaz Vs State as on 1 June 2022 DH
I am of the view that once an order of suspension has been passed, the applicant must be entitled to its benefit in its true letter, spirit and intent. Every day of freedom matters and the applicant cannot be made to stay in jail for the reason that she could not furnish surety: Justice Jasmeet Singh
In above matter , The woman namely Sehnaz was convicted under the offences of Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act . She was awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and fine of Rs. 40,000 (Rs. 20,000 each), in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
Vide order dated January 19, 2022 the High Court had suspended her sentence pending hearing of her appeal, on furnishing Personal Bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with two Surety Bonds of the like amount.
The applicant’s sentence was suspended on 19.01.2022 but she was not able to avail the benefit of the same for want of 2 sureties. Hence, on 08.03.2022, this Court modified the condition, wherein personal bond and surety was reduced to Rs. 15,000/- and the surety was permitted to be somebody other than a family member. However, the applicant has not been able to comply with the said condition as well.
The applicant approach court on 08.03.2022 further modification. Mentioning that the applicant has a permanent place of residence and requests that the applicant must be released on personal bond only, without any surety.
Court observed : I am of the view that once an order of suspension has been passed, the applicant must be entitled to its benefit in its true letter, spirit and intent. Every day of freedom matters and the applicant cannot be made to stay in jail for the reason that she could not furnish surety.
Accordingly, the order was further modified and the applicant was directed to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000.