Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Rajinder Koul & Anr vs Ut Of J&K on 27 July, 2026
Regular List
Serial No. 08
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Crl A(S) No. 14/2026
CrlM No. 1166/2026
Rajinder Koul & Anr.
......Appellants
Through: Mr. P.N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. J.A. Hamal, Advocate
Mr. Dinesh Verma, Advocate
Vs
UT of J&K
.....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with
Ms. Nisha Kangotra, AC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
CORAM:
ORDER
(27.07.2026)
CrlM No. 1166/2026
1. The applicants/appellants have preferred the accompanying appeal
challenging the judgment dated 29.06.2026 and the order on sentence dated
30.06.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (CBI Cases),
Jammu, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and
U/Ss 120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 RPC and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence U/S
5(1)(d), 5(2) J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with offence U/S
120-B with simple imprisonment of six months and u/s 420 RPC simple
imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.5000/- and u/s 467 RPC, simple
imprisonment of one year and Rs.5000/-and u/s 468 RPC, one year and
2
Rs.5000/- fine and u/s 471 RPC, simple imprisonment for six months.. In default
of fine, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and
all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Alongside the appeal, the appellants have filed the present application
under Section 389 BNSS seeking suspension of the sentence and release on bail
during the pendency of the appeal.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the
appellants have been falsely implicated and that the conviction is unsustainable
in law; that the applicant no.1 is 71 year old man suffering from heart ailments,
having stunt. It is contended that the appeal raises substantial questions of law
and fact requiring detailed examination. It is further submitted that the
appellants remained on bail throughout the trial, never misused the concession
of bail, regularly appeared before the trial Court, and there is no likelihood of
their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, which already
stands concluded. It is also urged that disposal of the appeal is likely to take
considerable time and, if the sentence is not suspended, the appellants may
undergo a substantial part of the sentence before the appeal is finally
adjudicated.
4. Pursuant to notice, objections stands filed on behalf of respondent No.1,
inter alia, contending that the applicants have failed to make out any exceptional
circumstances warranting exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court;
that it is a settled principle of law that suspension of sentence is an exception
and not the rule; that the grounds urged in the criminal appeal and the
accompanying application involves disputed questions relating to appreciation
of evidence, credibility of witnesses and findings of facts recorded by the
CrlA(S) No.14/2026, CrlM No.1166/2026 Page 2 of 5
3
learned Trial Court and the issues raised by the applicants are required to be
examined only at the time of final hearing of the appeal; that the offences for
which applicants have been convicted are grave in nature, involve moral
turpitude and have serious ramifications on public interest; that the Supreme
Court has consistently held that corruption and economic offences constitute a
distinct class and deserves a strict judicial approach while considering
application for suspension of conviction or sentence. Lastly, it is urged that the
application seeking suspension of sentence dated 30.06.2026 be dismissed in the
interest of justice.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the application, contending
that the appellants stand convicted after a full-fledged trial for offences
involving corruption by the appellants as public servants. It is argued that
corruption is a serious offence affecting public confidence in governance and
that no exceptional circumstance has been made out warranting suspension of
sentence.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment of the trial
court, whereby, applicants/appellants have been convicted, and have carefully
considered the material available on record.
7. The power under Section 389 BNSS to suspend the execution of sentence
during the pendency of an appeal is discretionary and is required to be exercised
judiciously. While considering such an application, the appellate Court is not
expected to undertake a detailed re-appreciation of the evidence or record
findings on the merits of the appeal. The Court is required to examine whether
the appeal raises arguable issues, the nature and length of the sentence, the
CrlA(S) No.14/2026, CrlM No.1166/2026 Page 3 of 5
4
likelihood of early disposal of the appeal, the conduct of the appellants during
trial, and other relevant considerations.
8. In Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC
421, the Supreme Court reiterated that where a convicted person has been
sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment and the appeal is not likely to be
heard in the near future, suspension of sentence may ordinarily be granted unless
there exist exceptional circumstances warranting denial of such relief. At the
same time, the Supreme Court has consistently held that offences under the
Prevention of Corruption Act are grave offences affecting the integrity of public
administration. In State of Maharashtra v. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar,
(2012) 12 SCC 384, the Apex Court observed that corruption by public servants
strikes at the very root of good governance and, therefore, Courts are expected
to exercise caution while considering requests for suspension of sentence, in
such cases.
9. In the present case, the appellants remained on bail throughout the trial
and there is nothing on record to indicate that they ever misused the concession
of bail or attempted to interfere with the administration of justice. The
prosecution evidence already stands concluded and the relevant records are in
judicial custody. The appeal involves issues requiring consideration by the
appellate Court. Having regard to the pendency of criminal appeals before this
Court, the appeal is not likely to be heard in the immediate future.
10. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal, and balancing
the seriousness of the offence with the settled principles governing suspension
of sentence, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants have succeeded in
CrlA(S) No.14/2026, CrlM No.1166/2026 Page 4 of 5
5
making out a case for suspension of the substantive sentence during the
pendency of the appeal.
11. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The substantive sentence
awarded to the appellants vide order dated 30.06.2026 shall remain suspended
during the pendency of the appeal and they are admitted to bail and ordered to
be released from custody, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The appellants shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-
with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Judicial Magistrate concerned.
(ii) The appellants shall deposit the amount of fine, if not already deposited.
(iii) The appellants shall appear before this Court on each and every date of
hearing unless exempted.
(iv) The appellants shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of India without
prior permission of this Court.
(v) In the event of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, the
respondent shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail and recall of
this order.
12. CrlM No.1166/2026 is, accordingly, disposed of.
CrlA(S) No. 14/2026
List on 22.09.2026.
(M A CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
JAMMU
27.07.2026
Raj Kumar
Raj Kumar
2026.07.27 17:53
I attest to the accuracy and
CrlA(S)
integrity of this No.14/2026, CrlM No.1166/2026
document Page 5 of 5
