Jharkhand High Court
Raju Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 September, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.565 of 2025
------
1. Raju Yadav
2. Firoz Ansari .... .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
------
Order No.05 Dated : 12.09.2025
I.A. No.11873 of 2025
Heard learned counsel in I.A. No.11873 of 2025 which has been filed for
suspension of sentence of the appellants, who have been convicted under
Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act for being found in possession of 9 mm country
made pistol and four live cartridges.
Earlier I.A. No.8689 of 2025 was pressed into motion for similar relief,
which has been rejected vide order dated 24.07.2025. Subsequent thereto, the
appellants moved Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.12692 of 2025, which has been disposed of with permission to the petitioners
to move before this Court with a fresh application for suspension of
sentence/grant of bail pending the appeal.
It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of appellants that the
appellants have been sentenced only for three years of imprisonment and he has
a good case in appeal and therefore before the appeal is taken up, the present
interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of sentence.
Having considered the submissions advanced, it is apparent that earlier
interlocutory application for suspension of sentence was rejected on merit with a
direction to surrender before the learned trial court to serve the sentence. The
order has not been complied with. Further, I do not find any fresh ground for
suspension of sentence. For suspension of sentence, there should be prima facie
material suggestive of infirmity in the judgment of conviction with prospect of
success in appeal. Law on the point has been laid down by the Apex Court in
Preet Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & Another, (2020) 8 SCC 645
35. There is a difference between grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC in
case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC
and grant of bail, post conviction. In the earlier case, there may be
presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of criminal
jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and
circumstances of the case, on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an
exception, as held by this Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. [Dataram
Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 675] However,
in case of post-conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence,
there is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence does
not arise. Nor is the principle of bail being the rule and jail an exception
attracted, once there is conviction upon trial. Rather, the court considering
an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the
prima facie merits of the appeal, coupled with other factors. There should be
strong compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an order of
conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong and compelling reason
must be recorded in the order granting bail, as mandated in Section 389(1)
CrPC. (emphasis supplied)
I.A. No.11873 of 2025 accordingly, stands dismissed. Appellants are
directed to surrender before the court below within two weeks of the order,
failing which the trial court will take all coercive measures.
If the appeal is not taken up for hearing in the near future, the
appellants will be at liberty to renew the prayer for suspension of sentence after
serving half of sentence.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
