Jale Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20232)
2026 Latest Caselaw 6856 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 6856 Raj
Judgement Date : 28 April, 2026

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jale Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20232) on 28 April, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:20232]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                  No. 84/2026

                                          in

                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No.664/2025

Jale Singh S/o Munshi Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Dhani
Chhoti, P.s. Sidhmukh, Dist. Churu (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In
District Jail, Churu)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. Nishant Bora
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. NS Chandawat, PP
                                  Mr. Rakesh Matoria
                                  Mr. Vikas Vishnoi



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

28/04/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment

dated 15.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge,

POCSO Act 2012, No.1, District Churu in Criminal Case

No.79/2021 whereby he was convicted and sentenced to

suffer maximum imprisonment of 20 years under Sections

376(2)(n), 376D of IPC along with fine and default sentence.

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

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 01:51:36 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20232] (2 of 6) [SOSA-84/2026]

further submitted that the appellant 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

modification of conviction, the sentence may be suspended

pending adjudication.

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 01:51:36 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20232] (3 of 6) [SOSA-84/2026]

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

of pending criminal appeals, and the likelihood of their early

disposal remains uncertain. In such circumstances,

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 01:51:36 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20232] (4 of 6) [SOSA-84/2026]

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, in the statement of PW-1, the victim the

Court found several in-congruence and major contradiction

therein. When she was confronted with her statement

recorded by the police on 10.09.2021 which tendered into

evidence and marked as Exhibit D-1, even a single glimpse

over it making it abundantly clear that the name of co-

accused Krishna Kumar does not find place therein. A

perusal of the above further revealing that she was in

relationship with the appellant, three months ago before the

incident she took a mobile phone from him and used to

exchange calls and messages with him even in wee hours.

On the day of incident upon receipt of a call of the appellant

during night hours, she left the company of her parents in a

surreptitious manner and joined the association of the

appellant. Whatever deposed by her during trial and during

investigation persuading this Court to tentatively believe the

story of the defence that the victim was a consenting party,

she was in love with him and she eloped with him and

established sexual relationship as per her own accord, free

will and volition. The appellant is a boy of 24 years. Be that

as it may, 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 01/05/2026 at 01:51:36 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20232] (5 of 6) [SOSA-84/2026]

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.