[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jaspal Singh @ Sana vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 January, 2026

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:512-DB]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
      D.B. Criminal Misc. 4th Suspension Of Sentence Application
                         (Appeal) No. 2186/2025

Jaspal Singh @ Sana S/o Jarnail Singh, Aged About 47 Years,
Resident Of 15-APD, Ramsinghpur Police Station, District Sri
Ganganagar. (Raj.)
(Presently Lodged In Open Camp Jail, Jaitsar, Sri Ganganagar).
                                                                          ----Applicant
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                      ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Mahender Singh Soni
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP



       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI

Order

07/01/2026

1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 12.09.2019 passed by

the learned Additional Session Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sri

Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.08/2015 :

     Offence          Sentence                                     Fine
302 IPC        Life Imprisonment Rs.50,000/-   and in default of
                                 payment of fine to further
                                 undergo six months' additional
                                 simple imprisonment.

2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for

suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C./430(2) BNSS for

suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal and for

release on bail.

3. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-

applicant is that as the applicant has already undergone sentence

(Uploaded on 07/01/2026 at 04:46:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:512-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-2186/2025]

of 10 years and 10 months as on 07.01.2026 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. 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 opposes the application for

suspension of sentence. 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 appeal pertaining to year

2020 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 :-

(Uploaded on 07/01/2026 at 04:46:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:512-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-2186/2025]

"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 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 the actual sentence of 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

(Uploaded on 07/01/2026 at 04:46:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:512-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-2186/2025]

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./430(2) BNSS is allowed

and it is ordered that substantive sentence passed by learned

Additional Session Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in

Sessions Case No.08/2015 against the appellant-applicant -

Jaspal Singh @ Sana S/o Jarnail Singh 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.

(Uploaded on 07/01/2026 at 04:46:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:512-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-2186/2025]

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

14. 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 relating 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 been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to

pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial court. In case the

said accused-applicant do not appear before the trial court,

learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for