Brij Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:17847) on 16 April, 2026

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)