Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Salman 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 Suspension of Sentence Application No.708/2026
in
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 743/2026
1. Salman, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Hussain Chowk, P.s.
Rajtalab, Dist.banswara Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged In
Central Jail, Udaipur)
2. Salman S/o Samandar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Mandiya, Kalika Mata, P.s. Rajtalab, Dist. Banswara,
Rajasthan (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Chandawat, PP
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 applicants in the matter of judgment
dated 10.04.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge,
NDPS Cases, District Banswara in Sessions Case No.06/2022
whereby they were convicted and sentenced to suffer
maximum imprisonment of 1 year under Sections 8/21 of
NDPS Act along with fine and default sentence.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submit 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 23/04/2026 at 02:06:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 06:16:18 PM)
(2 of 5) [SOSA-708/2026]
appellate court, this Court may reappraise the evidence. It is
further submitted that the appellants 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
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:06:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 06:16:18 PM)
(3 of 5) [SOSA-708/2026]
modification of conviction, the sentence may be suspended
pending adjudication.
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
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:06:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 06:16:18 PM)
(4 of 5) [SOSA-708/2026]
of pending criminal appeals, and the likelihood of their early
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 recovered contraband is below
commercial quantity. There is submission regarding non-
compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act.
The sentence awarded to the appellant is of a comparatively
shorter duration. The embargo contained under Section 37
of NDPS Act would not come in way of granting bail to the
appellant. The issues raised are 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 appellants.
11. 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-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 learned trial Judge and whenever ordered
to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions
indicated below:-
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:06:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 06:16:18 PM)
(5 of 5) [SOSA-708/2026]
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.
12. 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
125-chhavi/-
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:06:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 06:16:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)