[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Raghuveer vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:16984) on 10 April, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:16984]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                  No. 9/2026

1.       Raghuveer S/o Lt. Sh. Netram, Aged About 57 Years,
         Resident    Of    Bade      Bargat       Ke     Ped      Ke    Pass   Village
         Jahanabad Khamriya Thana Kalan Tehsil Jalalabaf District
         Shahjahapur Up At Present 37 Ssw Tehsil And District
         Hanumangarh (Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner)
2.       Shyamveer S/o Lt. Sh. Netram, Aged About 45 Years,
         Resident    Of    Bade      Bargat       Ke     Ped      Ke    Pass   Village
         Jahanabad Khamriya Thana Kalan Tehsil Jalalabaf District
         Shahjahapur Up At Present 37 Ssw Tehsil And District
         Hanumangarh (Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner)
3.       Chandrapal       S/o   Shyamveer,           Aged         About   19   Years,
         Resident    Of    Bade      Bargat       Ke     Ped      Ke    Pass   Village
         Jahanabad Khamriya Thana Kalan Tehsil Jalalabaf District
         Shahjahapur Up At Present 37 Ssw Tehsil And District
         Hanumangarh (Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner)
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Sanjay Raj Pandit
                                 Mr. Manish Barasa
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

10/04/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the appellants in the matter of judgment

dated 13.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional District &

Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.

12/2018 (CIS No. 88/2018), whereby the appellants have

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:35:01 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16984] (2 of 6) [SOSA-9/2026]

been convicted for the offences under Sections 455/34,

323/34 and 304 Part-II/34 IPC and sentenced to suffer

maximum punishment of 10 years' Simple Imprisonment

along with a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under

Section 304 Part-II/34 IPC, along with lesser sentences for

the other offences.

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

appellate court, this Court may reappraise the evidence. It is

further submitted that 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

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:35:01 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16984] (3 of 6) [SOSA-9/2026]

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.

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

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:35:01 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16984] (4 of 6) [SOSA-9/2026]

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

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, it is borne out that the appellants have

been awarded the maximum sentence of 10 years'

imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC

and have already undergone around 07 years and 10 months

of custody, which constitutes a substantial part of the

substantive sentence. Taking guidance from the authoritative

pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard

to prolonged incarceration and pendency of criminal appeals,

this aspect weighs significantly in favour of the appellants for

grant of suspension of sentence. Apart from the above, it is

contended that the incident arose out of a sudden quarrel

and the role attributed to the appellants is not free from

doubt. The prosecution case rests primarily on related

witnesses and certain inconsistencies have been pointed out

in their statements, particularly with regard to the manner of

occurrence and attribution of injuries. It is also urged that

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:35:01 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16984] (5 of 6) [SOSA-9/2026]

the medical evidence does not fully support the prosecution

version and that the necessary ingredients to attract the

offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC, as also the

applicability of Section 34 IPC, are matters requiring

examination at the stage of appeal.

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:-

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.

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:35:01 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16984] (6 of 6) [SOSA-9/2026]

3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

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