[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jagmohan Singh Alias Jagga vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:1782) on 8 January, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:1782]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                  No. 1187/2025

                                          In

                    S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1620/2025

Jagmohan Singh Alias Jagga S/o Shri Karam Singh Ramdasiya
Sikh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Rama Tehsil Nihalsinghwala
District Moga Punjab. At Present Sevadar Mandir Khet Shri
Rajesh Kumar, Nh 62 Bypass, Khyaliwala, Police Station Sadar,
Sri   Ganganagar.       (At       Present      Lodged      In       Central   Jail,    Sri
Ganganagar)
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                        ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr. Sunil Vishnoi
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

08/01/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment

dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge,

NDPS Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case

No.02/2023 whereby he was convicted and sentenced to

suffer twenty years' RI along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-

under Section 8/22 of 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

(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:28:13 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1782] (2 of 7) [SOSA-1187/2025]

erroneous conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required

to be appreciated again by this court being the first appellate

Court. It is further contended that 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-applicant 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

(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:28:13 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1782] (3 of 7) [SOSA-1187/2025]

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. 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

(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:28:13 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1782] (4 of 7) [SOSA-1187/2025]

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 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

(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:28:13 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1782] (5 of 7) [SOSA-1187/2025]

irreversible risk, the court must proceed on the safer side by

placing paramount importance on human dignity and

personal liberty.

13. A careful and conscientious perusal of the record

unequivocally reveals that the Seizing Officer, Rambhuj, had

expired during the pendency of the trial and, as such, could

not be examined before the learned Trial Court. The

prosecution was thus deprived of examining the most

material and pivotal witness connected with the alleged

seizure. Notwithstanding this fatal lacuna, the learned Trial

Court proceeded to convict the appellant solely on the

testimonies of P.W.1 Ramesh Kumar and P.W.2 Kailash

Chandra, whose evidence, in the absence of corroboration

from the Seizing Officer, remains inherently fragile and

insufficient to sustain a conviction under the stringent

provisions of the NDPS Act. Furthermore, it is borne out from

the record that samples were not drawn from each individual

packet and strip of the purportedly recovered medicinal

contraband, thereby casting serious doubt on the integrity of

the seizure and sampling process. Such procedural lapses

constitute a clear, substantial, and irremediable non-

compliance with the mandatory statutory safeguards

prescribed under Sections 50, 52-A, and 57 of the NDPS Act.

These provisions, being mandatory in character and not

merely directory, are designed to ensure scrupulous

adherence to due process and to eliminate the possibility of

false implication or tampering. The cumulative effect of

(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:28:13 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1782] (6 of 7) [SOSA-1187/2025]

these infirmities strikes at the very foundation of the

prosecution case, rendering the conviction wholly

unsustainable in the eyes of law.

14. 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 enure to the benefit of the appellant.

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-applicant named above 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/- 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 14/01/2026 at 03:28:13 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1782] (7 of 7) [SOSA-1187/2025]

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