[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Balkaran Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:8005) on 12 February, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:8005]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                   No. 2323/2025

                                             In

                    S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2750/2025

1.       Balkaran Singh S/o Gurdev Singh, Aged About 68 Years,
         R/o Pakka Bhadwa, District Hanumangarh. (Raj.)
2.       Balvindra Singh Alias Bindra S/o Gurdev Singh, Aged
         About       55       Years,        R/o       Pakka           Bhadwa,   District
         Hanumangarh. (Raj.)
3.       Jagsir Singh S/o Balvindra Singh Alais Bindra, Aged About
         33 Years, R/o Pakka Bhadwa, District Hanumangarh.
         (Raj.)
4.       Manveer Singh S/o Balkaran Singh, Aged About 39 Years,
         R/o Pakka Bhadwa, District Hanumangarh. (Raj.)
5.       Sukhveer Singh S/o Balkaran Singh, Aged About 38
         Years, R/o Pakka Bhadwa, District Hanumangarh. (Raj.)
                                                                         ----Petitioners
                                         Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Pp
                                                                        ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Daulat Singh
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. NS Chandawat, PP
                                     Mr. Nishant Motsara



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

12/02/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicants in the matter of judgment

dated 25.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.45/2018

whereby they were convicted and sentenced to suffer

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 03:27:12 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8005] (2 of 7) [SOSA-2323/2025]

maximum ten years' SI along with a fine of Rs.20,000/-

under Sections 326/149 and 307/149 of IPC and lesser

punishment for the other offences under Sections 325/149,

148, 341, 323 of IPC (and under Section 3/25 of Arms Act

for the appellant No.1 only)

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants 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 No.1 was released on bail on

12.09.2014 and the rest of the appellants were released on

bail on 11.08.2014 and after the pronouncemnt of the

impugned judgment dated 25.11.2025, the appellants are in

custody. 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-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

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 03:27:12 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8005] (3 of 7) [SOSA-2323/2025]

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 ensures

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 appellants, disclose a real and

substantial possibility of success, and where, prima facie, it

appears that the conviction may be reversed and the

appellants may be acquitted, the appellate court ought to

suspend the sentence pending disposal of the appeal.

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 03:27:12 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8005] (4 of 7) [SOSA-2323/2025]

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

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

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 03:27:12 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8005] (5 of 7) [SOSA-2323/2025]

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

placing paramount importance on human dignity and

personal liberty.

13. In the present case, the parties are residents of the same

vicinity and belong to the same community. However, due to

an exacerbated typical condition post skirmishing on a trivial

issue, the incident took place, subsequently, the issue has

been pacified, and they have resolved the dispute amicably

and re-established comity and brotherhood.

14. The affidavit regarding compromise dated 02.02.2026 has

been placed on record. Shri Nishant Motsara, learned

counsel for the respondent, approves and verifies the factum

of compromise. The injuries received by the victim are not

on his vital part of the body. All the issues raised are vital in

nature and carry sufficient force and substance, such that if

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 03:27:12 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8005] (6 of 7) [SOSA-2323/2025]

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

reasonable possibility that such exercise may ultimately

ensure to the benefit of the appellants. In order to retain

harmony between them and to avoid unsettling the

compromise and for permanent burial of acrimony, it would

be in the interest of justice to suspend the sentence of the

appellants.

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-applicants named above shall remain suspended

till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he 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.

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 03:27:12 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8005] (7 of 7) [SOSA-2323/2025]

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

16. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of

the accused-applicant 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 applicant

does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial