SUZANNE LOUISE MARTINversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

                             [2009] 1 S.C.R. 359

 ~                      SUZANNE LOUISE MARTIN                             A
                                       v.
                      STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
                      (Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2009)
                             JANUARY 16, 2009                             B

'J,'.
           [MARKANDEY KATJU AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]

             CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:
              s. 389 - Grant of bail and suspension of sentence -         c
        Conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by
        trial court uls 376 /PC - Pending appeal High Court granting
        bail and suspending the sentence - HELD: This was not a fit
        case where the sentence awarded should have been
        suspended and accused released on bail - High Court was
~                                                                         D
        totally unjustified in granting bail to the accused, or in
        suspending the sentence - Order of High Court set aside -
        Bail granted to accused cancelled - Penal Code, 1860 -
        s.376.
             CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
        No. of 78 of 2009.
                                                                          E
             From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.7.2008 of the
        High Court of Judicature at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
        Application/Suspension of sentence Petition No. 712 of 2008
        in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 344 of 2008.
                                                                          F
             Vikram Choudhary and Nikhil Jain (for Ajay Pal) for the
        Appellant.
             Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Rajendra Singhvi and K.K.L.
        Gautam (for Brij Bhusan), for the Respondents.
             The Order of the Court was delivered                         G
                                     ORDER
             1. Leave granted.
             2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                      359                                 H
                                                                       '   .
    360       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2009] 1 S.C.R.


A      3. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated                   ~


  29.07.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
  Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal
  Miscellaneous Bail Application/Suspension of Sentence Petition
  No. 712 of 2008 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.344 of 2008
B whereby the High Court has suspended the sentence awarded
  to the accused-respondent No.2 under Section 389, Cr.P.C.
  and granted him bail on certain conditions.                              .,.
         4. We have carefully perused the record in this case,
   especially the first information report bearing No.18 dated
   9.1.2008
c Penal Code  registered under Sections 376 & 450 of the Indian
                 at Police Station Ambamata District, Udaipur in
   which serious allegations have been made against the
    respondent-accused. The appellant is a British journalist and
   business woman. She had come to India and was staying in
   Pardeshi Guest House, Udaipur. On 23/24.12.2007, the
D respondent No.2, who was running the guest house, barged                     ......
   into the room where the appellant was staying and forcibly raped
   her. She has alleged that because of this incident she was
  emotionally, mentally and physically wrecked and became totally
  uncapicitated to even think and act like a normal human being.
E We have also perused the judgment of the trial Court convicting
  the accused on both counts and awarded life imprisonment
  under Section 376, IPC.
         5. Under the circumstances, without expressing any
  opinion on the merits of the dispute and culpability of the
F accused, we are certainly of the opinion that this was not a fit
  case where the sentence awarded should have been
  suspended and the accused released on bail. The High Court
  was, thus, totally unjustified in granting bail to the accused, or
  in suspending the sentence.
G        6. Accordingly, we accept this appeal, set aside the
  impugned judgment of the High Court and cancel the bail
  granted to the accused-respondent No.2. He shall be taken into
  custody forthwith. However, we would request the High Court
  to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
H RP.                                         Appeal disposed of.