[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mool Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:4739) on 27 January, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:4739]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR


  S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                              No. 1828/2025

Ratan Lal S/o Bhanwar Lal Gurjar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Mayra Police Station Vijaypur District Chittorgarg (At Present
Lodged In District Jail Chittorgarh)


                                                                 ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                ----Respondent


                              Connected With


  S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                               No. 86/2026
Mool Singh S/o Khet Singh Rathore, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Gadha Police Station Shergarh District Jodhpur (At Present
Lodged In District Jail Chittorgarh)
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                ----Respondent



For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Kailash Khilery, for appellant
                               Ratan Singh
                               Mr. Jetha Ram, for appellant Mool
                               Singh
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. N.S. Chandawat, DyGA



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

27/01/2026

(Uploaded on 29/01/2026 at 06:22:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4739] (2 of 7) [SOSA-1828/2025]

1. The instant applications for suspension of sentence have

been moved on behalf of the applicants in the matter of

judgment dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Special

Judge, NDPS Act Cases No.2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case

No.31/2018 whereby they were convicted and sentenced to

suffer maximum imprisonment of 10 years along with a fine

of Rs.1,00,000/- for each of offence under Section 8/18 and

8/29 of the NDPS Act.

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 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 applications 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 appellants on

applications 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 29/01/2026 at 06:22:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4739] (3 of 7) [SOSA-1828/2025]

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 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.

(Uploaded on 29/01/2026 at 06:22:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4739] (4 of 7) [SOSA-1828/2025]

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 29/01/2026 at 06:22:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4739] (5 of 7) [SOSA-1828/2025]

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 appellants are in custody for the last

nearly four and a half years out of the total sentence of ten

years awarded to them. The quantity of recovered

contraband opium is stated to be only marginally above the

demarcated commercial quantity. The appellants have raised

arguable and debatable issues in the appeal, inter alia, with

regard to the legality of the process of seizure and sampling,

as well as the safe custody and transmission of the samples

till they reached the Forensic Science Laboratory.

Submissions have also been advanced regarding prima facie

non-compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in

Sections 42, 50, 52A and 57 of the NDPS Act. It is further

(Uploaded on 29/01/2026 at 06:22:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4739] (6 of 7) [SOSA-1828/2025]

contended that the seizure officer himself drew the samples

of the alleged narcotic substance and that such sampling

was not conducted in the presence of a Magistrate. Issues

have also been raised with respect to the alleged notice

under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It is further pointed out

that the so-called independent witnesses are habitual or

stock witnesses who have appeared in several NDPS cases,

whereas the remaining witnesses are police personnel. The

appellants have no previous criminal antecedents and during

the course of trial, when they were enlarged on bail, they did

not misuse the liberty granted to them and duly cooperated

with the proceedings. 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 applications for suspension of sentence filed

under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that

the sentences 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

(Uploaded on 29/01/2026 at 06:22:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4739] (7 of 7) [SOSA-1828/2025]

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.