[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Chandra Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6687) on 5 February, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:6687]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                 No. 23/2026

1.       Chandra Prakash S/o Sant Ram, Aged About 31 Years,
         R/o Ward No 06, Nagrana, Police Station Sangariya, Tehsil
         Sangariya,    District      Hanumangarh,             (Raj)      (At   Present
         Lodged In District Jail Hanumangarh)
2.       Mani Singh Alias Maniya S/o Baldev Singh @ Gurdev
         Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Satipura, Police Station
         Hanumangarh           Tehsil      And        District         Hanumangarh,
         Rajasthan.     (At      Present         Lodged           In    District   Jail
         Hanumangarh)
                                                                        ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                       ----Respondent


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



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

05/02/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicants in the matter of judgment

dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Sangariya, District Hanumangarh in

Sessions Case No.3/2020 whereby they were convicted and

sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment of 10 years

along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Sections 8/15, 25 of

the NDPS Act.

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

the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal

(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:07:47 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6687] (2 of 7) [SOSA-23/2026]

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.

3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the

accused-applicants 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.

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

(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:07:47 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6687] (3 of 7) [SOSA-23/2026]

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.

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

(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:07:47 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6687] (4 of 7) [SOSA-23/2026]

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

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

(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:07:47 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6687] (5 of 7) [SOSA-23/2026]

placing paramount importance on human dignity and

personal liberty.

13. In the case at hand, while considering the prayer for

suspension of sentence, this Court cannot remain oblivious

to the serious discrepancies which prima facie emerge from

the prosecution record. As per the recovery memo prepared

at the spot, the seizing officer has shown recovery of 54

kilograms of doda post, whereas the inventory report

subsequently prepared reflects the weight as 45 kilograms

and 380 grams. The variation is not marginal but

substantial, striking at the root of the prosecution case and

raising a grave doubt as to the sanctity of the alleged

recovery. At this stage, such a significant inconsistency

cannot be lightly brushed aside. Added to this is the fact that

the appellants are first-time offenders and there is no

material on record to suggest any previous criminal

antecedents. The appellants have already undergone custody

for about four years out of the total ten years of sentence

awarded. Furthermore, prima facie non-compliance with the

mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 52-A of the

NDPS Act is also alleged, which goes to the procedural

foundation of the prosecution case. All the issues raised are

vital in nature and carry sufficient force and substance, such

that if they are adjudicated in favour of the appellants, the

possibility of acquittal cannot be 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

(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:07:47 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6687] (6 of 7) [SOSA-23/2026]

reasonable possibility that such exercise may ultimately

ensure to the benefit of the appellants.

14. 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-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 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.