[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ajay @ Pintu vs State Of Rajsathan (2026:Rj-Jd:687) on 7 January, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:687]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                No. 1197/2025

                                          In

                    S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1637/2025

Ajay @ Pintu S/o Kishor Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Merta
City, District Nagaur, (Rajasthan) (Confined In District Jail,
Merta)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State Of Rajsathan, Through Pp
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Bhagirath Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA



                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

07/01/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment

dated 10.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge,

NDPS Act Cases, Merta in Sessions Case No.11/2020

whereby he was convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum

imprisonment of 14 years along with a fine of Rs.1,25,000/-

and in default to undergo two years' SI under Section 8/21

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

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 06:18:03 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:687] (2 of 7) [SOSA-1197/2025]

to be appreciated again by this court being the first appellate

Court. The appellant was on bail during trial and did not

misuse the liberty so granted to him; 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 09/01/2026 at 06:18:03 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:687] (3 of 7) [SOSA-1197/2025]

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 09/01/2026 at 06:18:03 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:687] (4 of 7) [SOSA-1197/2025]

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 09/01/2026 at 06:18:03 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:687] (5 of 7) [SOSA-1197/2025]

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

placing paramount importance on human dignity and

personal liberty.

13. A perusal of the record indicates that the appellant has been

convicted and sentenced by the trial Court in connection with

recovery of 94 bottles of codeine phosphate

chloropheramine Maleate syrup 'Xoef' and sample for

analysis was drawn from only one bottle out of total

recovered bottles allegedly seized, and the forensic report

pertains solely to that solitary sample. In such

circumstances, it cannot be concluded with the requisite

degree of certainty that all the seized bottles contained

codeine phosphate, thereby casting doubt on the

representative character and reliability of the sampling

process.

14. Further, there appears to be prima facie non-compliance with

the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, and 52A of the

NDPS Act, which impinges upon the procedural integrity of

the prosecution's case. These procedural infirmities raise

substantial and arguable issues warranting meticulous re-

appreciation at the stage of final adjudication.

15. Considering the aforesaid defects, and in view of the fact

that the appeal is not likely to be decided in the near future,

the continued incarceration of the appellant would be

manifestly unjustified. The issues raised are vital,

substantial, and carry appreciable force, such that if

adjudicated in favor of the appellant, the prospect of

(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 06:18:03 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:687] (6 of 7) [SOSA-1197/2025]

acquittal cannot be excluded. Resolution of these grounds

would necessitate careful examination and re-evaluation of

the evidence, and there exists a reasonable probability that

such exercise may ultimately ensure to the appellant's

benefit by allowing his application for suspension of

sentence.

16. 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.