The Supreme Court of India has expressed strong concerns regarding instances where a convict's jail term concludes while their appeal remains pending, deeming it a "travesty of justice". This observation was made in the context of a case where the Allahabad High Court failed to correctly apply the law regarding the suspension of a fixed jail term.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, set aside an order by the Allahabad High Court that declined to suspend the four-year jail term of an appellant, Aasif alias Pasha, who had been convicted under the POCSO Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Supreme Court expressed disappointment with the High Court's order, highlighting the importance of adhering to established legal principles in such matters. The Supreme Court had previously removed an Allahabad High Court judge from criminal roster for similar reasons.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should have considered the fact that the appeal was filed in 2024 and was unlikely to be heard in the near future. Allowing the four-year sentence to elapse while the appeal is pending would render the appeal meaningless, thus resulting in a travesty of justice. The Supreme Court referenced a 1999 ruling, Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others versus State of Gujarat, which stated that when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed term and files an appeal, the appellate court should liberally consider suspending the sentence, barring exceptional circumstances.

The Supreme Court clarified that there is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence and that appellate courts must record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed against. The court also underscored the importance of examining the subject matter, the issues involved, and the litigant's plea before applying the correct principles of law. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to reconsider the suspension plea, keeping in mind the governing principles, and to pass an order within 15 days. It also advised the High Court to consider whether the appellant's release would be against public interest.

The Supreme Court's observations underscore the significance of timely adjudication of appeals, especially when fixed-term sentences are involved. The court's concern reflects a broader commitment to ensuring that the right to appeal is not rendered futile by the passage of time and completion of the sentence.