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)