Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Brij Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:17847) on 16 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:17847]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 475/2026
Brij Lal S/o Ram Rakh, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Utarava Bas,
Sanwatsar, Tehsil Dungargarh, District Bikaner Raj. (In Judicial
Custody In Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagmal Singh Choudhary, Sr. Adv
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 16/04/2026
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment dated 07.03.2026 passed by the learned Session Judge, Sridungargarh, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.11/2017 whereby he was convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment of five years SI along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 307 of the I.P.C Act and lesser punishment for the other offences under Sections 323, 324, 341/34 of the IPC Act.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the legal and factual aspects, resulting in an erroneous finding of guilt. Being the first appellate court, this Court may reappraise the evidence, and (Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 02:35:25 PM) (Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:16:57 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:17847] (2 of 8) [SOSA-475/2026] as the appeal will take time for disposal, the sentence deserves to be suspended.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. The distinction between grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC (corresponding to Section 483 BNSS)and suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC (corresponding to Section 430 BNSS)is well settled. While the former operates at the pre-conviction stage, the latter comes into play post- conviction and requires the appellate court to assess, prima facie, the sustainability of the conviction and sentence under challenge.
6. Upon conviction, the presumption of innocence stands displaced; however, while considering suspension of sentence, the appellate court is required to evaluate whether the grounds raised in appeal disclose a substantial and arguable case. If the material on record suggests that the findings of the trial court may be debatable, the discretion under Section 389 CrPC (corresponding to Section 430 BNSS) can be justifiably invoked.Where the appeal raises issues which, on prima facie consideration, indicate a reasonable possibility of success, including reversal or modification of conviction, the sentence may be suspended pending adjudication.
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 02:35:25 PM) (Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:16:57 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:17847] (3 of 8) [SOSA-475/2026]
7. This Court is guided by the enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muna Bisoi v. State of Odisha (February 16, 2026), wherein it has been held that prolonged pendency of criminal appeals, not attributable to the convict, constitutes a valid ground for suspension of sentence. Reliance has also been placed on Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 291 , wherein the Supreme Court deprecated continued incarceration of convicts for long periods during pendency of appeals, observing that such practice would amount to a travesty of justice.
8. It is equally settled that while considering such application, the appellate court is not required to record conclusive findings on merits, as that would prejudice the final adjudication. A prima facie satisfaction regarding the arguability and substance of the grounds would suffice. The appellate jurisdiction being a continuation of trial, the entire evidence remains open to re-appreciation. The court may ultimately affirm, modify, or set aside the conviction, or alter the sentence, depending upon the outcome of such re- evaluation.
9. Additionally, even where conviction is sustained, the nature of offence or quantum of sentence may warrant reconsideration at the appellate stage, which further justifies a liberal approach in appropriate cases. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that it is burdened with a large number of pending criminal appeals, and the likelihood of their early (Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 02:35:25 PM) (Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:16:57 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:17847] (4 of 8) [SOSA-475/2026] disposal remains uncertain. In such circumstances, continued incarceration, despite arguable grounds in appeal, would not be justified, particularly when delay is not attributable to the appellant.
10. In the present case, the appellant-applicant stands convicted and sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and has, by now, undergone a substantial portion approximately half of the sentence so imposed. This significant period of incarceration, when viewed in conjunction with the attendant circumstances, assumes considerable relevance. The evidentiary substratum upon which the conviction rests calls for a comprehensive re- appreciation and a penetrating judicial scrutiny by this Court, so as to rigorously examined the correctness, legality, and intrinsic probative worth of the findings recorded in the impugned judgment. The grounds articulated in the memorandum of appeal are neither superficial nor illusory; rather, they raise substantial questions of law and fact which, if ultimately adjudicated in favour of the appellant, carry a plausible and reasonable potential of culminating in his acquittal. Notwithstanding the prima facie merit discernible in these submissions, this Court, in deference to judicial propriety, consciously abstains from rendering any definitive pronouncement on the merits at this interlocutory juncture. It is further manifest that, owing to the burgeoning docket and systemic constraints, there exists no reasonable likelihood of the appeal being taken up for final disposal in (Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 02:35:25 PM) (Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:16:57 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:17847] (5 of 8) [SOSA-475/2026] the near future. The specter of prolonged pendency, thereby, looms large, effectively extending the appellant's incarceration for an indeterminate duration despite the pendency of a substantive challenge to his conviction. Such a scenario inevitably invites the constitutional scrutiny of the appellant's fundamental right to a fair and expeditious adjudication.
11. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has propounded guidelines on the subject of bail in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. (2022) 10 SSC 51 and has held as under:-
"41. Sub-section (2) has to be read along with Sub-section (1). The proviso to Sub-section (2) restricts the period of remand to a maximum of 15 days at a time. The second proviso prohibits an adjournment when the witnesses are in attendance except for special reasons, which are to be recorded. Certain reasons for seeking adjournment are held to be permissible. One must read this provision from the point of view of the dispensation of justice. After all, right to a fair and speedy trial is yet another facet of Article 21. Therefore, while it is expected of the court to comply with Section 309 of the Code to the extent possible, an unexplained, avoidable and prolonged delay in concluding a trial, appeal or revision would certainly be a factor for the consideration of bail. This we hold so notwithstanding the beneficial provision Under Section 436A of the Code which stands on a different footing.
42. ......
43. A suspension of sentence is an act of keeping the sentence in abeyance, pending the final adjudication. Though delay in taking up the main appeal would certainly be a factor and the benefit available Under Section 436A would also be considered, the Courts will have to see the relevant factors including the conviction rendered by the trial court. When it is so apparent that the appeals are not likely to be taken up and disposed of, then the delay would certainly be a factor in favour of the Appellant.
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 02:35:25 PM) (Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:16:57 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:17847] (6 of 8) [SOSA-475/2026]
44. Thus, we hold that the delay in taking up the main appeal or revision coupled with the benefit conferred Under Section 436A of the Code among other factors ought to be considered for a favourable release on bail."
(Emphasis Supplied) The ratio so enunciated unequivocally underscores that undue and inordinate delay in the adjudication of appeals constitutes a weighty and independent ground for the grant of bail or suspension of sentence, particularly where the convict has already undergone a substantial part of the sentence. The constitutional mandate of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, inherently encompasses the right to a speedy trial and, by necessary extension, a prompt disposal of appeals. Any undue prolongation in this regard would render the appellate remedy illusory and nugatory.
12. In the conspectus of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is persuaded to hold that the present case eminently satisfies the parameters warranting suspension of sentence. The appellant has already endured a significant period of incarceration; he remained on bail during the course of trial without any allegation of misuse of liberty; the issues raised in appeal are substantial, debatable, and necessitate an elaborate re- evaluation of the evidentiary record; and the likelihood of early hearing remains remote owing to the voluminous pendency of cases. Collectively, these factors coalesce to form a compelling and persuasive basis for invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court in favour of the appellant. The issues raised are (Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 02:35:25 PM) (Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:16:57 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:17847] (7 of 8) [SOSA-475/2026] significant and merit consideration. If accepted, they may result in acquittal. They require proper examination and re- appreciation of evidence, with a fair possibility of benefit to the appellant.
13. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 430 BNSS) is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by learned trial court, the details of which are provided in the first para of this order, against the appellant-applicant named above shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.
14. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of (Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 02:35:25 PM) (Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:16:57 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:17847] (8 of 8) [SOSA-475/2026] this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.
(FARJAND ALI),J 240-ajaykumar/-
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 02:35:25 PM) (Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 06:16:57 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)