[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pintu vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:17512) on 15 April, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:17512]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Misc. II Suspension Of Sentence Application
                           (Appeal) No. 1214/2025

Pintu S/o Chainaram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Fogiyafali,
Moras, Ps Pindwara, Dist Sirohi. (Presently Confined In Central
Jail Jodhpur.)
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Pepli W/o Late Prabhuram, R/o Moras Ps Pindwada District
         Fogiyafali Sirohi
                                                                      ----Respondents


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



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

15/04/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment

dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge

(Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases),

Sirohi in Sessions Case No. 79/2022 whereby he was

convicted and sentenced to suffer 5 years' rigorous

imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the

offence under Section 9(M)/10 of the POCSO Act, and lesser

sentences of 2 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of

Rs.5,000/- under Section 451 IPC and 1 year's rigorous

imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 354 IPC,

(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 01:01:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:17512] (2 of 6) [SOSA-1214/2025]

with default stipulations, all substantive sentences to run

concurrently.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits 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 the appeal will take time for disposal,

the sentence deserves to be suspended looking to the

substatial period of incarceration already undergone by the

appellant.

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

(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 01:01:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:17512] (3 of 6) [SOSA-1214/2025]

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

the sentence, depending upon the outcome of such re-

evaluation.

(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 01:01:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:17512] (4 of 6) [SOSA-1214/2025]

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, the appellant has been awarded the

maximum sentence of 5 years for the offence under Section

9(M)/10 of the POCSO Act and he has already served a

period of about three and a half years, thus constituting a

substantial part of the sentence. Apart from that,

discrepancy has also been noticed in the statement of the

victim (PW-1). There is substance in the submission of

learned counsel for the appellant that the circumstance of

presence of the Bhabhi of the victim at the place of incident

appears to be dubious, since at the first instance it was the

stand of the victim that her Bhabhi was not at home and had

gone to the agricultural field for doing labour work. The

appeal is likely to take time. 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 appellant.

(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 01:01:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:17512] (5 of 6) [SOSA-1214/2025]

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-

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.