Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Amanveer Urf Aman vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Appln. No.538/2026
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 576/2026
Amanveer Urf Aman S/o Sh Hansraj Arora, Aged About 55 Years,
R/o Ward No. 15, Ramana Colony, Hanumangarh Town. Presently
Residing At Railway Station Road, Hanumangarh Town,
Hanumangarh Raj (Lodged In Dist. Jail Hanumangarh)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
18/04/2026
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been
moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment
dated 13.03.2026 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions
Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.37/2017
whereby he was convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum
imprisonment of five years SI along with a fine of
Rs.50,000/- under Section 304-II IPC and lesser
punishment for the other offences under Sections 279 & 337
of the IPC.
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
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 01:29:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:43:54 PM)
(2 of 7) [SOSA-538/2026]
appellate court, this Court may reappraise the evidence. It is
further submitted that the appellant remained on bail during
trial without misuse of liberty, and 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 01:29:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:43:54 PM)
(3 of 7) [SOSA-538/2026]
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
disposal remains uncertain. In such circumstances,
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 01:29:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:43:54 PM)
(4 of 7) [SOSA-538/2026]
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 findings recorded while adjudicating
the application for suspension of sentence reveal a matter
resting upon two substantially divergent prosecutorial
versions, thereby necessitating deeper appellate scrutiny.
Prima facie, the genesis of the prosecution case emanates
from the lodging of written report Exhibit P-3 submitted by
Surendra Kumar Meghwal. A careful perusal thereof
unmistakably indicates that the occurrence was initially
projected as a vehicular mishap arising out of rash and
negligent driving, resulting in collision with the victim and
the unfortunate consequence of death. Significantly, at that
foundational stage, there was not even the faintest
allegation suggestive of any deliberate, intentional, or
premeditated act on the part of the accused. On the
contrary, the tenor and substance of the report unequivocally
attribute the incident to negligence simpliciter.
During the course of investigation, certain witnesses appear
to have supported the occurrence as one involving an
accident. Simultaneously, however, at a later stage, the
narrative underwent a conspicuous transformation,
wherefrom the matter came to be projected not as an
accidental occurrence but as a conscious and willful act
amounting to an attempt to eliminate the victim. Such
material deviation in the prosecution version assumes
considerable significance, particularly when the substratum
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 01:29:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:43:54 PM)
(5 of 7) [SOSA-538/2026]
of criminal culpability shifts from negligence to intentional
violence.
11. It is further noticeable that the documentary and physical
evidence collected during investigation, including
photographs of the site, the condition of the vehicles, the
mechanical inspection report, and other contemporaneous
circumstances, prima facie bear stronger nexus to a case of
road accident. Conversely, there also exists oral material
imputing a deliberate assault intended to cause death. Thus,
the record presently contains two competing and internally
discordant versions one indicative of an accidental event
attracting consequences of negligent conduct, and the other
suggestive of a homicidal attempt founded upon mens rea.
In the appellate jurisdiction, this Court is required to
undertake a more profound reappraisal of the entire
evidentiary matrix so as to test the sustainability and
correctness of the findings returned by the learned trial
Court. The central question requiring determination would be
whether the incident was, in essence, a tragic accident
subsequently embellished into a graver offence, or whether
the prosecution has successfully established a calculated and
intentional act warranting attribution of higher criminal
culpability to the appellant. Until such comprehensive
examination is undertaken at the stage of final hearing, the
matter cannot be treated as free from substantial doubt.
Thus, for the present, this Court is inclined to suspend the
sentence of the appellant awarded by the trial court.
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 01:29:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:43:54 PM)
(6 of 7) [SOSA-538/2026]
12. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under 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.
13. 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 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
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 01:29:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:43:54 PM)
(7 of 7) [SOSA-538/2026]
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
159-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 01:29:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:43:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
