Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Kalu Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentence Application No.339/2026
in
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 377/2026
1. Kalu Lal S/o Sh. Shankar Lal, Aged About 55 Years,
Resident Of Paliwal Colony Amba Very Ps Dabok District
Udaipur Raj (Lodged In Jail Mavli Dist. Udaipur)
2. Puneet S/o Kalu Lal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of
Amba Very Ps Dabok District Udaipur Raj (Lodged In Jail
Mavli Dist. Udaipur)
3. Sunil S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of
Pipadrda Ps Rajnagar District Rajsamand Raj (Lodged In
Jail Mavli Dist. Udaipur)
4. Dinesh S/o Fateh Lal, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of
Merta Ps Mavli District Udaipur Raj (Lodged In Jail Mavli
Dist. Udaipur)
5. Rajkumar S/o Jamna Lal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident
Of Sindhu Ps Mavli District Udaipur Raj (Lodged In Jail
Mavli Dist. Udaipur)
6. Vijendra Alias Kanu S/o Nathu Lal, Aged About 40 Years,
Resident Of Merta Road Ps Dabok District Udaipur Raj
(Lodged In Jail Mavli Dist. Udaipur)
----Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
16/02/2026
1 The instant application for suspension of sentence has been
moved on behalf of the applicants in the matter of judgment dated
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:58:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:08:10 PM)
(2 of 6) [SOSA-339/2026]
12.02.2026 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mavli,
District Udaipur in Sessions Case No.32/2019 whereby they were
convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment of five
years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 308/149 of
IPC and lesser punishment for the other offences under Sections
325/149, 323/149, 148 & 143 of IPC.
2 It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that
the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal and
factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous
conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be
appreciated again by this court being the first appellate Court. The
appellants were on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty
so granted to them; hearing of the appeal is likely to take long
time, therefore, the application for suspension of sentence may be
granted.
3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-
applicants for releasing the appellant on application for suspension
of sentence.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. There exists a fine yet significant distinction between the
grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, and the suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C.
While the power exercised under Section 439 CrPC is essentially
discretionary in nature and operates at the pre-conviction stage,
the jurisdiction under Section 389 Cr.P.C, though also
discretionary, is qualitatively different and operates post-
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:58:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:08:10 PM)
(3 of 6) [SOSA-339/2026]
conviction. Under Section 389 CrPC, the appellate court is vested
with a distinct authority; however, the core consideration before
the appellate forum must necessarily be whether the judgment of
conviction and the consequent order of sentence are sustainable in
the eyes of law.
6. It is trite that the presumption of innocence, which enures in
favour of an accused, comes to an end upon conviction.
Consequently, while considering an application under Section 389
CrPC, the appellate court is required to examine the grounds
raised in the appeal, and for such purpose, the oral and
documentary evidence must be looked into. Where, upon
appreciation of evidence, it appears that the conclusions drawn by
the trial court may be erroneous, and where logical, legal and
sustainable arguments are advanced assailing the findings,
disclosing a strong and arguable case, the appellate court is duty-
bound to consider such contentions.
7. Where the sustainability of the conviction itself becomes
debatable, and where the grounds raised in appeal, if adjudicated
in favour of the appellant, disclose a real and substantial
possibility of success, and where, prima facie, it appears that the
conviction may be reversed and the appellant may be acquitted,
the appellate court ought to suspend the sentence pending
disposal of the appeal.
8. Such discretion deserves to be exercised with greater
circumspection in cases where the appellate forum has sufficient
reason to believe that the appeal is not likely to be taken up for
hearing in the near future. In such circumstances, the court is
required to assess whether the grounds raised are not merely
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:58:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:08:10 PM)
(4 of 6) [SOSA-339/2026]
ornamental but possess real substance and force, for the simple
reason that if the appeal ultimately succeeds, the period of
incarceration already undergone cannot be undone or restituted.
In such a situation, the court should incline towards suspending
the sentence.
9. At the same time, it is well settled that the appellate court is
not required to record any definitive or conclusive finding, as
doing so would amount to forming a pre-determined opinion on
the merits of the appeal at an initial stage, without affording a full
hearing on the appeal itself. It is sufficient if the court merely
indicates that the grounds raised are prima facie appreciable,
logical and legally tenable, that they are founded upon settled
principles of law, and that there appears to be improper evaluation
or assessment of evidence, or non-consideration / disregard of
relevant statutory provisions.
10. It is also to be borne in mind that in several cases, the
conviction may ultimately be converted to a lesser offence, or the
propriety of the sentence imposed by the trial court, being within
its discretionary domain may also require reconsideration,
particularly whether an adequate and proportionate sentence was
imposed after due hearing on the point of sentence. These
aspects, too, are open to re-examination at the appellate stage.
11. An appeal, in its true sense, is an extension of the trial, for
the reason that additional evidence may be taken, and the entire
body of evidence is subject to re-appreciation on both factual and
legal parameters. At this stage, the appellate court is empowered
to set aside the conviction, modify it, remand the matter, or
maintain the judgment, as the case may be.
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:58:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:08:10 PM)
(5 of 6) [SOSA-339/2026]
12. In the High Court, thousands of criminal appeals have
remained pending for the last 20-30 years, including jail appeals,
where even the likelihood of early hearing does not appear
forthcoming. In such matters, instead of taking an irreversible
risk, the court must proceed on the safer side by placing
paramount importance on human dignity and personal liberty.
13. In the present case, considering the submission whether the
injuries alleged received by the victim would bring the case of
prosecution within the four corners of the definition of Section 308
of IPC, more particularly that if the victim might have died by the
injuries allegedly inflicted upon them then it would be a case of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Looking to the term
of sentence and all the issues raised are vital in nature and carry
sufficient force and substance, such that if they are adjudicated in
favour of the appellant, the possibility of acquittal cannot be ruled
out. The grounds raised are appreciable and necessitate definitive
adjudication, which would require meticulous examination and re-
appreciation of evidence, and there exists a reasonable possibility
that such exercise may ultimately ensure to the benefit of the
appellant.
14. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. 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-
applicants named above shall remain suspended till final disposal
of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail provided
each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:58:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:08:10 PM)
(6 of 6) [SOSA-339/2026]
learned trial Judge and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal
of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
1. That they will appear before the trial Court in
the month of January of every year till the
appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicants change the place of
residence, they will give in writing their 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.
15. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicants 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 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 applicants do 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
157-chhavi/-
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:58:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:08:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
