Case Name : Athar Pervez vs State Case Reference: Neutral Citation - 2016:DHC:1680-DB Case Number: Crl Ref 1/2015 Court: Delhi High Court Bench: 02 Coram: Sanjiv Khanna (Author), RK Gauba Date: 26.02.2015
Parole does not amount to suspension of sentence or stay of conviction - Rajesh Kumar vs GNCTD
A direction to the accused released on anticipatory bail to submit himself to custody and only thereafter apply for regular bail is contrary to Article 21 since it would amount to deprivation of personal liberty.
Interim bail is not defined in the CrPC (Para 17); it is temporary liberation for a fixed period of time. It is bail on a pro-tem basis. It is not a substitute or alternative for regular bail. Interim bail should be granted for the minimal time deservedly necessary (Para 19, 20(4)) NDPS - Section 37 and NDPS - Section 32A are to be kept in mind when deciding the application for interim bail (Para 20(2))
The court granting interim bail should consider whether sending the accused / convict in police custody would suffice and meet the ends of justice (Para 20(3))
– Refer also: Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Menon vs State of Gujarat, (1988) 2 SCC 271 An order granting or refusing bail is an interlocutory order
Dadu vs State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 437 Section 32A takes away the right of the court to suspended sentence, but the court can grant parole or furlough when a person is convicted and sentenced under NDPS and his appeal has been dismissed. There is a distinction between parole and bail or suspension of sentence.
Rajesh Kumar vs GNCTD, Neutral Citation - 2011:DHC:6539-DB
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Mahrashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 Explaining scope of CrPC - Section 438 Central Inland Water Transport Corp Ltd vs Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC 156 Law must respond and be responsive to the felt and discernible compulsions of circumstances that would be equitable, fair and justice.
See also: CrPC - Section 397 NDPS - Section 32A
PDF: Athar Pervez vs State, 2016-DHC-1680-DB, Crl Ref 1-2015.pdf