Recently, the Uttarakhand High Court observed that while considering an application for suspension of sentence and bail in an appeal against conviction, the appellate court is required to examine whether the conviction suffers from infirmities instead of merely interpreting procedural provisions relating to suspension of sentence.
The matter arose from a criminal revision filed by a convict challenging an order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, whereby his application seeking suspension of sentence and bail during pendency of appeal was rejected. The revisionist had been convicted under Section 363 IPC. He was acquitted of the charge under Section 506 IPC and sentenced to seven years’ simple imprisonment along with fine.
Before the High Court, counsel for the Revisionist contended that the conviction itself was doubtful as the age of the victim had not been determined in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Juvenile Justice Act. It was further argued that the victim had not supported the prosecution case during trial. The revisionist also emphasized that he remained on bail throughout the trial proceedings and had never misused the liberty granted to him.
On the other hand, the State did not dispute that the Revisionist had remained on bail during trial without misuse of liberty and that the criminal appeal against conviction had already been admitted by the appellate court.
While examining the impugned order, the High Court expressed surprise over the approach adopted by the appellate court. The Court noted that instead of examining the merits of the conviction, the appellate court proceeded to interpret Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and concluded that suspension of conviction was not mandatory.
Making strong observations against the appellate court’s reasoning, the High Court stated that “It appears that the 1st Addl. Session Judge, Roorkee without applying its judicial mind passed the order impugned, though appeal preferred by the revisionist (convict) is an statutory appeal which was admitted, and instead of going with the merit of the case whether conviction is bad or not, the learned Judge, interpreted the scope of Section 430(1)of BNSS 2023.”
The Court further observed that “If the convict preferred an appeal against his conviction then the Appellate Court should examine whether conviction is bad or not which is completely missing in the order impugned.”
Taking into account the fact that the revisionist had remained on bail during trial without misuse, that the appeal had already been admitted, and that the sentence awarded was seven years’ imprisonment, the High Court held that the revisionist deserved to be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal. Consequently, the High Court quashed the order rejecting bail and suspended the conviction and sentence during pendency of the criminal appeal before the Sessions Court.
Case Title: Sandeep vs. State of Uttarakhand
Case No.: CRLR No. 248 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
Counsel for the Revisionist: Mr. Vinod Kumar Jemini with Mr. Ashish Kumar Jemini
Counsel for the State: Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, Brief Holder
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
