[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shrawan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 February, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentence Application No.341/2026

                                       in

             S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 379/2026

1.     Shrawan Lal S/o Sohan Lal, Aged About 55 Years,
       Residents Of Polas Police Station Merta Road District
       Nagaur.
2.     Sukha Ram S/o Sohan Lal, Aged About 35 Years,
       Residents     Of       Polas      Police       Station    Merta   Road
       Districtnagaur.
3.     Mukesh Bishnoi S/o Shrawan Ram, Aged About 34 Years,
       Residents     Of       Polas      Police       Station    Merta   Road
       Districtnagaur.
4.     Kavita, Aged About 33 Years, Residents Of Polas Police
       Station Merta Road Districtnagaur.
                                                                 ----Appellants
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)          :    Mr. Rahul Parihar
                               Mr. Bhawani Singh
                               Mr. Surendra Pratap
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

16/02/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment dated

31.01.2026 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, District

Merta in Sessions Case No.12/2021 whereby he was convicted

and sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment of 1 year along

(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:59:07 PM)

(2 of 6) [SOSA-341/2026]

with a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Sections 325 of IPC and lesser

punishment for the other offences under Section 323 of IPC.

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

appellants were on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty

so granted to them; 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 Cr.P.C.

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 Cr.P.C, 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

(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:59:07 PM)

(3 of 6) [SOSA-341/2026]

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 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.

(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:59:07 PM)

(4 of 6) [SOSA-341/2026]

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 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 the 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

(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:59:07 PM)

(5 of 6) [SOSA-341/2026]

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, learned trial court has suspended the

sentence, but for a limited period so as to enable them to move an

appeal. Looking to the term of sentence and 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 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 appellant.

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 they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

2. That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed

(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:59:07 PM)

(6 of 6) [SOSA-341/2026]

address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.