Bahadur Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3772 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Bahadur Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 12 March, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:11884-DB]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
 D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                   No. 381/2026

Bahadur Ram S/o Sohan Lal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 31 Bb
P.s.    Gajsinghpur          Tehsil      Padampur           Distt.   Sriganganagar
(Rajasthan). (At Present Lodged In Distt. Jail, Sriganganagar).
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Kaushal Gautam
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, Dy.G.A.



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

12/03/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment

dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge

(Women Atrocities Act Cases), District Sriganganagar in

Sessions Case No.38/2017 whereby he was convicted and

sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment of life

imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.20000/- under Section

302 of IPC.

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 13/03/2026 at 04:37:55 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11884-DB] (2 of 8) [SOSA-381/2026]

to be appreciated again by this court being the first appellate

Court.

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

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

(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:37:55 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11884-DB] (3 of 8) [SOSA-381/2026]

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

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

(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:37:55 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11884-DB] (4 of 8) [SOSA-381/2026]

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

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

placing paramount importance on human dignity and

personal liberty.

(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:37:55 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11884-DB] (5 of 8) [SOSA-381/2026]

13. In the present case, a specific plea has been raised on behalf

of the appellant that the incident occurred in a state of acute

frustration and despair, wherein both spouses allegedly took

a decision to end their lives. It is the defence version that, in

furtherance of the said decision, the lady got a cut on the

vessel of her hand, whereof she though sustained the

injuries but later hanged herself to end her life. It is further

the case of the defence that the appellant himself consumed

spray in an attempt to take his own life; however, owing to

the immediate onset of vomiting, his endeavour to end his

life could not be materialized. This narrative, as projected by

the defence, is a matter which would ultimately require a

deeper evaluation by this Court at the appropriate stage.

However, at this juncture, it cannot be lost sight of that the

appellant has already remained behind the bars for a period

exceeding nine years. In this backdrop, this Court is

reminded of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab reported in

(1977) 4 SCC 291, it was held that it would indeed be a

travesty of justice to keep a person incarcerated for five or

six years for an offence which may ultimately be found not

to have been committed by him. Recently, the Apex Court

has again re-iterated this in the case of Muna Bisoi v State

of Odisha in a criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) Diary

No. 163 of 2026 dated 16.02.2026. For ready reference, the

relevant paragraph of Kashmira (supra) is reproduced

hereinbelow:-

(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:37:55 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11884-DB] (6 of 8) [SOSA-381/2026]

"2. The appellant contends in this application that pending the hearing of the appeal he should be released on bail. Now, the practice in this Court as also in many of the High Courts has been not to release on bail a person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The question is whether this practice should be departed from and if so, in what circumstances. It is obvious that no practice howsoever sanctified by usage and hallowed by time can be allowed to prevail if it operates to cause injustice. Every practice of the Court must find its ultimate justification in the interest of justice. The practice not to release on bail a person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment was evolved in the High Courts and in this Court on the basis that, once a person has been found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment-, he should not be let loose, so long as his conviction and sentence are not set aside, but the underlying postulate of this practice was that the appeal of such person would be disposed of within a measurable distance of time, so that if he is ultimately found to be innocent, he would not have to remain in jail for an unduly long period. The rationale of this practice can have no application where the Court is not in a position to dispose of the appeal for five or six years. It would indeed be a travesty of justice to keep a person in jail for a period of five or six years for an offence which is ultimately found not to have been committed by him. Can the Court ever compensate him for his incarceration which is found to unjustified? Would it be just at all for the Court to tell a person: "We have admitted your appeal because we think you have a prima facie case, but unfortunately we have no time to hear your appeal for quite a few years and, therefore, until we hear your appeal, you must remain in jail, even though you may be innocent?" What confidence would such administration of justice inspire in the mind of the public? It may quite conceivably happen and it has in fact happened in a few cases in this Court, that a person may serve out his full term of imprisonment before his appeal is taken up for hearing. Would a judge not be overwhelmed with a feeling of contrition while acquitting such a person after hearing the appeal? Would it not be an affront to his sense of justice? Of what avail would the acquittal be to such a person who has already served out his term of imprisonment or at any rate a major part of it? It is, therefore, absolutely essential that the practice which this Court has been following in the past must be reconsidered and so long as this Court is not in a position to hear the appeal of an accused

(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:37:55 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11884-DB] (7 of 8) [SOSA-381/2026]

within a reasonable period of time, the Court should ordinarily, unless there are cogent grounds for acting otherwise, release the accused on bail in cases where special leave has been granted to the accused to appeal against his conviction and sentence."

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.

14. 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

(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:37:55 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11884-DB] (8 of 8) [SOSA-381/2026]

address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

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

15. 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

Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for

cancellation of bail.

                                   (SANDEEP SHAH),J                                                    (FARJAND ALI),J
                                    120-Mamta/-




                                                            (Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 04:37:55 PM)




Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)