[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajendra Prasad Arya vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:16110) on 7 April, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:16110]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                  No. 2428/2025

                                           In

                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2854/2026

Rajendra Prasad Arya S/o Shri Amar Singh Arya, Aged About 56
Years, R/o Dhani Pannesinghpura, Police Station Ratannagar,
District Churu, Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged In Distt. Jail
Hanumangarh)
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Pp
                                                                      ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr. Bharat Gurjar
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

07/04/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment

dated 28.11.2025 passed by the learned Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, NDPS Act Cases Sangaria, District

Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.31/2019 whereby he was

convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment

of eleven years RI along with a fine of Rs. 1,25,000/- under

Sections 8/15, 29 of the NDPS Act and lesser punishment for

the other offences under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that

the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 01:00:56 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16110] (2 of 7) [SOSA-2428/2025]

and factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an

erroneous conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required

to be appreciated again by this court being the first appellate

Court. The appellant was on bail during trial and did not

misuse the liberty so granted to him; hearing of the appeal

is likely to take long time, therefore, the application for

suspension of sentence may be granted.

3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the

accused-applicant for releasing the appellant on application

for suspension of sentence.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

5. There exists a fine yet significant distinction between the

grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, and the suspension of sentence under

Section 389 CrPC. While the power exercised under Section

439 CrPC is essentially discretionary in nature and operates

at the pre-conviction stage, the jurisdiction under Section

389 CrPC, though also discretionary, is qualitatively different

and operates post-conviction. Under Section 389 CrPC, the

appellate court is vested with a distinct authority; however,

the core consideration before the appellate forum must

necessarily be whether the judgment of conviction and the

consequent order of sentence are sustainable in the eyes of

law.

6. It is trite that the presumption of innocence, which enures in

favour of an accused, comes to an end upon conviction.

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 01:00:56 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16110] (3 of 7) [SOSA-2428/2025]

Consequently, while considering an application under Section

389 CrPC, the appellate court is required to examine the

grounds raised in the appeal, and for such purpose, the oral

and documentary evidence must be looked into. Where,

upon appreciation of evidence, it appears that the

conclusions drawn by the trial court may be erroneous, and

where logical, legal and sustainable arguments are advanced

assailing the findings, disclosing a strong and arguable case,

the appellate court is duty-bound to consider such

contentions.

7. Where the sustainability of the conviction itself becomes

debatable, and where the grounds raised in appeal, if

adjudicated in favour of the appellant, disclose a real and

substantial possibility of success, and where, prima facie, it

appears that the conviction may be reversed and the

appellant may be acquitted, the appellate court ought to

suspend the sentence pending disposal of the appeal.

8. Such discretion deserves to be exercised with greater

circumspection in cases where the appellate forum has

sufficient reason to believe that the appeal is not likely to be

taken up for hearing in the near future. In such

circumstances, the court is required to assess whether the

grounds raised are not merely ornamental but possess real

substance and force, for the simple reason that if the appeal

ultimately succeeds, the period of incarceration already

undergone cannot be undone or restituted. In such a

situation, the court should incline towards suspending the

sentence.

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 01:00:56 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16110] (4 of 7) [SOSA-2428/2025]

9. At the same time, it is well settled that the appellate court is

not required to record any definitive or conclusive finding, as

doing so would amount to forming a pre-determined opinion

on the merits of the appeal at an initial stage, without

affording a full hearing on the appeal itself. It is sufficient if

the court merely indicates that the grounds raised are prima

facie appreciable, logical and legally tenable, that they are

founded upon settled principles of law, and that there

appears to be improper evaluation or assessment of

evidence, or non-consideration / disregard of relevant

statutory provisions.

10. It is also to be borne in mind that in several cases, the

conviction may ultimately be converted to a lesser offence,

or the propriety of the sentence imposed by the trial court,

being within its discretionary domain may also require

reconsideration, particularly whether an adequate and

proportionate sentence was imposed after due hearing on

the point of sentence. These aspects, too, are open to re-

examination at the appellate stage.

11. An appeal, in its true sense, is an extension of the trial, for

the reason that additional evidence may be taken, and the

entire body of evidence is subject to re-appreciation on both

factual and legal parameters. At this stage, the appellate

court is empowered to set aside the conviction, modify it,

remand the matter, or maintain the judgment, as the case

may be.

12. In this High Court, thousands of criminal appeals have

remained pending for the last 20-30 years, including jail

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 01:00:56 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16110] (5 of 7) [SOSA-2428/2025]

appeals, where even the likelihood of early hearing does not

appear forthcoming. In such matters, instead of taking an

irreversible risk, the court must proceed on the safer side by

placing paramount importance on human dignity and

personal liberty.

13. In the case at hand, the appellant-applicant stands convicted

and sentenced in relation to the recovery of 172 kilograms of

Doda Post, and has already undergone approximately half of

the imposed sentence. The contention regarding non-

compliance with mandatory statutory provisions and

procedural irregularities, when considered alongside the

evident lapses under the NDPS Act, serves, at this juncture,

to attenuate the prosecution's narrative. Furthermore, the

appellant has endured a substantial period of incarceration,

while the appeal itself is unlikely to be listed for final

adjudication in the foreseeable future.

14. The grounds advanced in the appeal are of profound legal

import and exhibit considerable persuasive strength, thereby

necessitating a conclusive and scrupulous determination.

Such determination would inevitably entail a comprehensive

re-evaluation and analytical reassessment of the entire

evidentiary framework by this Court at the stage of final

hearing. Should these issues ultimately be resolved in favour

of the appellant, the prospect of acquittal cannot be

discounted.

15. Upon a cumulative and holistic appraisal of these

circumstances, this Court is persuaded that a compelling

case for suspension of sentence has been established,

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 01:00:56 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16110] (6 of 7) [SOSA-2428/2025]

warranting the grant of the application. The issues raised are

intrinsically significant, imbued with substantial merit and

legal tenability, and demand authoritative adjudication. Their

resolution would require a meticulous and nuanced re-

examination of the evidentiary record, and there exists

possibility that such judicial scrutiny may ultimately operate

to the appellant's advantage, potentially culminating in

acquittal.

16. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed

under Section 389 Cr.P.C. 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.