I had posted the previous Article/Post at three different websites. And its contents seem to have reached Sanjay.
But it appears from the media interviews that the Ld. Public Prosecutor is better prepared than the Ld. Defence Counsel(s) on some of the issues.
The Law is as under:-
Firstly, in Law & practice, a Bail means that the custody of the Accused is not given to the State (acting through the Jailor) but either to a private individual—with certain conditions, or that the Accused is bound down (upon his own Personal surety) to appear before the Court when called.
Secondly, the Ld. Court which grants regular Bail, has the power to cancel the same. And if a Court has reason to apprehend that an Accused might evade arrest after a sentence is pronounced by it, then the Court may suo motu cancel the Bail—THOUGH COGENT REASONS FOR THE SAME MUST BE RECORDED IN WRITING. But this does not apply to Sanjay’s case because he has been appearing on every hearing even after a part of the Judgment (i.e. a judgment on conviction) has been pronounced. Because he is present in the Court and the Court can take him into custody after the sentence is pronounced, he need not be made to surrender in advance.
Thirdly, this Ld. Court has acquitted Sanjay of the graver charges--under the TADA. And the State (State Govt., or the Central Govt.—acting through the CBI) is not contemplating an Appeal; nor is this a proper case for any suo motu intervention by the Hon’ble Appellate Court.
It is not advisable for Sanjay, too, to go in Appeal—because in an Appeal, the Appellate Court can acquit/convict and/or reduce/increase the sentence.
So, his Lawyers should now focus on a lenient sentence. For this, either the family grounds or the vocational grounds can, at best, bring relief in ‘kishts’.
The best ground for him is:-
It is apparent on the face of the well reasoned judgment of this Hon’ble Court that Sanjay was being tried for so many years by the Prosecution for an offence which he had never committed. The magnitude & severity of the ignominy and mental trauma suffered by Sanjay and his teenaged daughter, for so long--because of the aforesaid provenly baseless allegation, was much more than what he would have physically suffered during a sentence awarded under the Arms Act. Hence, he deserves a lenient punishment.
If the sentence of imprisonment is for the period already undergone, then Sanjay will not be incarcerated again. And if in addition, any fine is imposed, then he may pray for a short time to deposit the same and also pray for extension of Bail in the meanwhile—in some Districts the Trial Courts have the power to extend Bail, especially after a lighter sentence has been imposed.
If the sentence is for imprisonment for three years or less—with a special Order for extending the benefit of s.428 of the Cr.P.C. and equally for Remissions under the Prisoners’ Act for the same period, then Sanjay can easily be released under the Probation of Offenders Act. Even otherwise, a person can be released under the said Act—though certain conditions (including Surety) might be imposed.
With Best Wishes