The Supreme Court has granted relief to a murder convict whose appeal against conviction has been pending in a High Court for nearly a decade, observing that undue delay in the disposal of an appeal can entitle a convict to the suspension of the sentence. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma set aside an order of the High Court that had refused to suspend the life sentence of the appellant, noting that even a person convicted of a heinous offence cannot be denied the benefit of sentence suspension when the appeal has remained unheard for an excessively long period. The appellant, Muna Bisoi, had been convicted by a Sessions Court under provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to murder and a provision of the Arms Act, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed an appeal against his conviction in 2016 before the Orissa High Court, but by late 2025 his appeal had remained pending for over eleven years. When the High Court considered his application for suspension of sentence in October 2025, it declined to grant full suspension but did grant interim bail for three months in view of the prolonged delay.
Shortly before the interim bail period was to expire, the appellant approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s refusal to permanently suspend the sentence pending his appeal. The Supreme Court examined the matter and emphasised that the entitlement of a convicted person to seek suspension of sentence cannot be discarded merely because the offence is serious, especially where the appeal has languished without hearing for years and no cogent grounds were shown to justify continued detention pending appeal. In setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court made the interim bail order absolute by suspending the life sentence imposed by the Sessions Court pending the disposal of the pending appeal.
In support of its decision, the Court referenced its earlier 1977 judgment in Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, where it had deprecated the practice of refusing bail to convicts whose appeals remained pending for long periods, stating it would be a “travesty of justice” to keep a person in jail for several years for an offence which might ultimately be found not to have been committed. The Supreme Court reiterated that principle, underscoring that if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the appellant and no compelling reasons exist for continued detention, the sentence ought to be suspended pending final hearing of the appeal. In applying that reasoning to the present case, the Supreme Court observed that nothing on record indicated that the delay was due to any action by the appellant, and that the view expressed in the 1977 precedent regarding the need to reconsider strict practices of denying bail pending appeal was applicable.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed that the life sentence imposed by the Sessions Court be suspended, effectively making the appellant’s interim bail permanent until the appeal is finally decided. The bench also directed the High Court to decide the pending appeal as early as possible, preferably within a specified period, to ensure that the matter does not languish further. This ruling highlights the emphasis on preventing undue incarceration of convicts when statutory appeals have been pending for extended periods, reinforcing the principle that justice delayed can amount to injustice, and that prolonged detention during appeal warrants relief in appropriate cases.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.