[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kapil Gupta vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 January, 2026

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Vinod Kumar Bharwani

[2026:RJ-JD:861-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
     D.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application
                      (Appeal) No. 1065/2023

Kapil Gupta S/o Shri Ram Raj, Aged About 25 Years, B/c
Mahajan, R/o Plot No. 12-13, Ganesh Nagar-I, Opp. Balaji
College, Bansda, Harmada, P.s. Harmada, Jaipur. (Presently
Lodged In Central Jail, Ajmer).
                                                                           ----Applicant
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                      ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Prakash for
                                   Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP


     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order

08/01/2026

1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 25.11.2020 passed by

the learned Additional Session Judge, No.1, Parbatsar, District

Nagour in Sessions Case No.61/2014 :

 Offence              Sentence                                      Fine
302 IPC     Life Imprisonment               Rs.50,000/- and in default of
                                            payment of fine to further
                                            undergo two years' additional
                                            simple imprisonment.
396 IPC     Life Imprisonment               Rs.50,000/- and in default of
                                            payment of fine to further
                                            undergo two years' additional
                                            simple imprisonment.
460 IPC     Ten years' Rigorous Rs.20,000/- and in default of
            Imprisonment        payment of fine to further
                                undergo one year's additional
                                simple imprisonment.

2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for

suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 04:48:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:861-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1065/2023]

of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and for release on

bail.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that the

similarly situated co-accused Dhansilal & Dharam Singh @ Dhan

Singh has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 passed in D.B. Criminal

Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.175/2023.,

the case of the present appellant-applicant is not distinguishable

from that of the said co-accused and therefore, the appellant may

also be accorded benefit of suspension of sentence.

4. The plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-

applicant is that the applicant has undergone a sentence of 11

years, 08 months & 19 days as on 15.07.2024 and there is no

chance of hearing of the appeal in near future, thus, in view of the

directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.09.2022 in

Sonadhar v. The State of Chhattisgarh : SLP (Crl.) No.529/2021,

the sentence of the applicant be suspended and he be enlarged on

bail.

4.1. Further submissions have been made that there are no

reasons and / or extenuating circumstances for denial of bail.

Submissions have also been made with reference to order dated

05.10.2021 in Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh : SLP

(Crl.) No.4633/2021, wherein also observations have been made

regarding grant of bail in the appeal at the High Court stage

except certain exceptions and that none of the exceptions are

applicable in the present case.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for

suspension of sentence with the submission that as the appellant-

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 04:48:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:861-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1065/2023]

applicant has committed heinous offence, suspension of sentence

of such offender would send adverse message in the society.

However, he fairly submits that as per the custody report placed

on record, the applicant has undergone more than ten years of

actual custody and the period of incarceration is not in dispute.

6. We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on

record.

7. Looking to the fact that criminal appeals pertaining to year

2021 also are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing

of the present appeal in near future.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh

(supra) observed an exception, which could be a broad guideline,

which reads as follows :-

"1. Heinous nature of crime :

(a) Prohibited categories : To ensure public peace and the well-being of the society, life convicts who are hardened criminals, repeat offenders, kidnappers, in crimes related to massacre (three or more than three murders), habitual criminals, and fall in prohibited categories as per the U.P. Jail Standing Policy- no bail should be granted. "

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonadhar (supra),

while dealing with SMW (Crl.) No.4/2021 pertaining to 'life

convicts in jail whose appeals are pending before the High Court'

inter-alia, issued the following directions :-

"We consider appropriate to issue directions in terms of the aforesaid suggestions to the Patna High Court and on a pari materia basis to even the other High Courts. However, in order to carry out this exercise, the data would have to be compiled of such of the persons who

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 04:48:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:861-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1065/2023]

have been in custody for more than 10 years and more than 14 years, with these persons being considered for grant of bail pending appeal, if there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in the near future, unless there are reasons for denial of bail. We can understand if any of the parties is delaying the appeal itself but short of that, we are of the view that all persons who have completed

10 years of sentence and appeal is not in proximity of hearing with no extenuating circumstances should be enlarged on bail."

10. Prior to that in the case of Saudan Singh (supra) also

observations were made regarding grant of bail in cases where

convicts have undergone sentence for sufficiently long time and

appeals were pending at the High Court stage with exceptions

indicated therein.

11. In the present case as observed herein-before, the appellant-

applicant has already undergone sentence for more than 10 years

and apparently, there are no chances of hearing of the present

appeal in near future. Except for the fact that the appellant-

applicant was involved in offence leading to his conviction for life,

nothing has been brought on record by way of extenuating

circumstances for denial of suspension of sentences.

12. Consequently, following the order in the case of Sonadhar

(supra) and observations made in Saudan Singh (supra), without

making any observations on merits of the case only on account of

the fact that more than 10 years' sentences has already been

undergone by the appellant-applicant, we are inclined to suspend

the substantive sentences of the appellant-applicant during the

pendency of the appeal.

13. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of

sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is

ordered that substantive sentence passed by learned Additional

Session Judge, No.1, Parbatsar, District Nagour in Sessions Case

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 04:48:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:861-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1065/2023]

No.61/2014 against the appellant-applicant - Kapil Gupta S/o

Shri Ram Raj 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/- to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for

his appearance in this court on 09.02.2026 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.