Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Nitish Kumar @ Pappu vs The State (Nctof Delhi) on 21 January, 2025
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15541/2024]
NITISH KUMAR @ PAPPU Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Respondent
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant, having been convicted by the trial court for commission of
offence punishable under Sections 354(A) / 354(D) of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Sections 9 / 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act,
2012 and sentenced to 5 years’ simple imprisonment vide judgment and order
dated May 06, 2023, filed an appeal 1 before the High Court of Delhi 2. The appeal
is pending.
3. In connection with the said appeal, the appellant applied under Section
389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 3 for suspension of sentence and
release on bail. Such application, however, has been rejected by the impugned
judgment and order dated August 07, 2024 of the High Court. This appeal is
directed against such rejection.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2025.01.22
4.
18:31:01 IST
Reason: Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
1 CRL. A. 583/2023
2 High Court
3 Cr. PC
2
materials on record, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has
made out sufficient ground for suspension of sentence and consequent release
on bail, during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court.
5. We have noted that the appellant has been behind bars for two years and
eight months as on date, i.e., for more than half of the prison term imposed by
the trial court.
6. Right to appeal is a statutory right conferred by the Cr. PC. Having regard
to the immense burden on Judges of the High Court hearing criminal appeals,
any early decision on the appeal filed by the appellant does not seem to be a
real possibility. Should relief claimed be not granted and the appellant made to
suffer incarceration further and the prison term also gets over, justice could turn
out to be illusory for him in the event the High Court, in future, were to reverse
the conviction and set aside the same together with the sentence.
7. Having regard thereto, we set aside the impugned judgment and order.
The appellant shall be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as
may be imposed by the trial court, pending decision on his appeal by the High
Court.
8. Subject to its convenience, the roster bench of the High Court may
expedite hearing of the appeal.
9. Needless to observe, the appellant shall diligently participate in the
proceedings of the appeal. Should the appellant’s counsel remain absent
without justifiable cause when the appeal is taken up for hearing or counsel
engaged by him is not prepared to argue the appeal, the High Court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.
10. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail will
not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
3
11. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid terms.
12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
…………………………J.
[DIPANKAR DATTA]
…………………………J.
[MANMOHAN]
New Delhi;
January 21, 2025.
4
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 15541/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-08-2024
in CRLM No. 1067/2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi]
NITISH KUMAR @ PAPPU Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE (NCTOF DELHI) Respondent(s)
IA No. 258160/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 258161/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 21-01-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Anuja Pethia, AOR
Mr. Harshit Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Noor Shergill, Adv.
Ms. Kritika, Adv.
Ms. Halen Maria, Adv.
Mr. Supriya, Adv.
Mr. Rishabh Govila, Adv.
Mr. Rishabh Nigam, Adv.
Mr. Srikant Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Ms. Sonia Dhamija, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(JATINDER KAUR) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)
P.S. to REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
[Signed order is placed on the file]
[ad_1]
Source link