[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Chetan Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 February, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                              No.2391/2025

                                       In

            S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2814/2025

Chetan Kumar, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Khardevti Fla Rela
Police Station Jawarmines District Salumber. (Raj.) (Presently
Lodged At Central Jail Udaipur, Rajasthan)
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2.     Shankar Lal S/o Chokha Ji, R/o Hamitad Kharbar B Police
       Station Parsad District Salumber (Rajasthan).
                                                                ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Firoz Khan
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, Dy.G.A.
                               Ms. Ashma Khan



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

03/02/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment

dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge,

POCSO Act Cases No.1, District Udaipur in Sessions Case

No.20/20225 whereby he was convicted and sentenced to

suffer maximum imprisonment of twenty years along with a

fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act

and lesser punishment for the other offences under Sections

137(2), 87, 127(4) of the BNS.

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 03:04:28 PM)

(2 of 7) [SOSA-2391/2025]

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

the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal

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.

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 03:04:28 PM)

(3 of 7) [SOSA-2391/2025]

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

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

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

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 03:04:28 PM)

(4 of 7) [SOSA-2391/2025]

situation, the court should incline towards suspending the

sentence.

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.

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 03:04:28 PM)

(5 of 7) [SOSA-2391/2025]

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

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

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. Perusal of the statement of the victim reveals that

considerable force inheres in the plea advanced at the

instance of the appellant-applicant, wherein it is asserted

that the alleged victim voluntarily absconded with him of her

own volition. The narrative indicates that she traversed

various locations, availing herself of public conveyances, and

lodged in hotels for a continuous period of thirteen days,

often in the company of multiple individuals, yet at no

juncture did she seek assistance, lodge a complaint, or solicit

protection from any authority. The matter pertaining to her

age, both in terms of oral testimony and documentary

evidence, particularly with reference to Exhibit P12 and the

statements tendered by her parents, remains a subject

warranting meticulous and circumspect scrutiny by this

Court. The petitioner, a young adult of merely twenty-one

years of age, further underscores the necessity of a

painstaking and nuanced examination of the factual matrix

before any definitive adjudication can be rendered.

14. All the issues raised are vital in nature and carry sufficient

force and substance, such that if they are adjudicated in

favour of the appellant, the possibility of acquittal cannot be

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 03:04:28 PM)

(6 of 7) [SOSA-2391/2025]

ruled out. The grounds raised are appreciable and

necessitate definitive adjudication, which would require

meticulous examination and re-appreciation of evidence, and

there exists a reasonable possibility that such exercise may

ultimately enure to the benefit of the appellant.

15. 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.