Under Section 389 of Cr.P.C., a sentence can be suspended during the appeal process, contingent upon the provision of a personal bond and sureties.

Headnote:
SUSPENSION - SENTENCE - The court granted the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C., allowing the applicants/appellants to remain free during the appeal process, emphasizing the importance of personal bonds and sureties while not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Fact of the Case:

The applicants/appellants sought suspension of their sentence awarded by the Special Judge under the POCSO Act, arguing that they were on bail during the trial and that the trial court had previously suspended their sentence post-conviction.
Finding of the Court:

The court considered the arguments from both sides and the overall circumstances of the case, deciding to suspend the sentence without commenting on the merits of the case.
Issues: Whether the sentence awarded to the applicants/appellants should be suspended during the pendency of their appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to suspend the sentence was based on the provisions of Section 389 of Cr.P.C., which allows for suspension of sentence pending appeal, provided certain conditions are met.
Result: The application for suspension of sentence was allowed, with the condition that the applicants/appellants furnish a personal bond and sureties.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Songara, J. - This application for suspension of sentence has been preferred on behalf of the applicants/appellants under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence awarded by Special Judge of POCSO Act 2012 & Protection of Children Rights Commission Act 2005 No. 2, Kota (Raj.) vide its judgment dated 27.09.2021 in Sessions Case No.278/2018 (CIS No. 278/2018) (Old No. 105/2016).

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants/appellants submits that the applicants/appellants was on bail during trial and his sentence has already been suspended by the learned trial court after judgment and order of conviction. Hence, sentence awarded to the applicants/appellants may be suspended during pendency of the appeal.

3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants/appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material made available on record.

5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the applicants/appellants and overall facts and circumstances of the case; but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to suspend the sentence awarded to the applicant/appellant.

6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that execution of the sentence awarded by the trial court to the applicants/appellants, namely Kuldeep @ Sonu Son Of Mohan Lal and Nawal Jangid S/o Ramesh Chand shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before this Court on 18.11.2021 thereafter as and when called upon to do so.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document