The Court observed that appellate courts have the discretion with regard to suspension of sentence and that apart from the period of incarceration already undergone, the nature of the accusations against the accused, the manner in which the crime was alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence and its social impact must also be considered.
In this case, the Court said it would not be safe to suspend the appellants’ sentences since there was no way to know whether they are “having sleeping volcanoes of terrorism in their mind to indulge in violent jihad.”
“Here is a case where the applicants/appellants acted against the interest of the nation as they wanted to wage war against Syria, an Asiatic power at peace with the Government of India. So, even if the applicants/appellants have undergone major portion of the sentence imposed on them, it is not safe to release them on bail, as we do not know whether they still entertain the idea of performing Hijra to Syria for indulging in violent jihad,” the Court elaborated.
The Court ultimately refused to grant bail to the three convicts and dismissed the applications.
Source: Barandbench
