The Supreme Court recently granted bail to a 70-year-old blind man, Bherulal, in a case involving cheating and forgery, criticizing the Madhya Pradesh High Court for its “casual approach” in handling his plea for suspension of sentence (Bherulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh).

The vacation bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, expressed strong disapproval of the High Court’s refusal to release the septuagenarian, despite his having completed half of his sentence.

The Court noted that the High Court could have easily considered Bherulal’s plea for suspension of sentence by applying the correct principles of law from the outset. “We observe that High Courts often issue stereotypical orders without proper consideration. The High Court should have acknowledged that the petitioner is seventy years old and has already served two years of a four-year sentence. The petitioner is nearly blind,” the Court stated.

The Court further remarked that there was no indication that releasing Bherulal on bail pending appeal would impede the course of justice. “The High Court’s casual approach necessitated this Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. This litigation could have been avoided had the High Court applied the appropriate legal principles concerning the suspension of fixed-term sentences,” the Court added.

The Court emphasized that established law dictates that if the sentence imposed by the trial court is for a fixed term, the appellate court should generally consider suspending the sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances to deny such relief.

In Bherulal’s case, the High Court made no observations justifying the refusal to suspend the sentence.The trial court had convicted Bherulal under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to four years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000.

Aggrieved by his conviction, Bherulal appealed to the High Court in 2023. While his appeal was pending, he filed applications for suspension of sentence and bail multiple times, but was unsuccessful in obtaining relief from the High Court. He subsequently approached the Supreme Court.

Considering Bherulal’s advanced age, severe health issues, and 90 percent vision impairment, the Supreme Court ordered his release. The Court also noted that he had already served two years of his sentence. Further the Court Commented “The law is well settled that if the sentence imposed by the trial court is for a fixed term, then ordinarily the appellate court should consider the plea for suspension of sentence liberally, unless there are any exceptional circumstances emerging from the record of the case to decline such relief.”

Advocates Anup Kumar, Neha Jaiswal, Shivam Kumar, Pragya Choudhary, and Shruti Singh represented Bherulal.