Bail pending appeal after conviction may be granted where the sentence is short and no reason exists to deny discretion.

An applicant convicted and sentenced to less than three years' imprisonment was found entitled to bail pending appeal under Section 389(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court treated the request as one for release on bail after conviction, not for suspension of conviction, and held that the trial court had misread the earlier precedent relied upon. Given that the applicant had remained on bail during trial, had paid the fine, the sentence was short, and the appeal had been admitted, no sufficient reason existed to refuse discretionary relief. Bail was granted and the substantive sentence was kept suspended.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant, convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than three years, was entitled to bail pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal under Section 389(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The application was not one for suspension of conviction but for release on bail pending appeal after conviction. The applicant had been on bail during trial, the fine had been paid, and the sentence imposed was comparatively short. The rejection by the trial court proceeded on an incorrect understanding of the earlier decision relied upon, since the relevant consideration was whether the substantive sentence should be suspended and bail granted under the appellate scheme. In the circumstances, where the appeal had been admitted and no sufficient reason was shown to refuse discretionary relief, the request for bail merited acceptance.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to bail pending appeal, and the substantive sentence was ordered to remain suspended.

---