Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2084
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, RAVI CHIRANIA, JJ.
Inderpal S/o Late Mahendra Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1585 of 2025
Decided on : 10-09-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramawtar Singh Choudhary, Mr. Sumer Singh
For the Respondent: Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP, Mr. Manjeet Godara
The court ruled that delays in hearing appeals justify the suspension of sentences, balancing justice against the severity of offences.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 430, 389 - Suspension of sentence - Present application was filed by applicants convicted of heinous offences seeking suspension due to trial delays and previous bail status - Court observed that prolonged pendency warranted suspension despite the serious nature of offences - Applicants required to ensure attendance and provide updates on residence changes. (Paras 1, 8, 9)
(B) Appeal - Suspension of sentence - Court noted the potential for significant delays in appeal hearing and absence of new facts to deny suspension - Balance of justice favoured allowing suspension to promote fair judicial process. (Paras 6, 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The applicants were convicted in serious offences with various sentences, including life imprisonment, but requested suspension based on prior bail and trial delays.
Findings of Court:
Suspension of applicants' sentences granted with conditions for attendance and reporting.
Issues: Whether the applicants deserve suspension based on trial delays and their prior bail status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lengthy delay in appeal proceedings justified suspension, promoting fairness without prejudicial impact based on their serious convictions.
Result: Application for suspension of sentence partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. withdrawal of application for suspension with opportunity to reapply. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plea for bail based on previous bail status and trial proceeding delays. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's consideration of appeal delays in deciding on suspension. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. decision to suspend sentence with defined attendance and reporting conditions. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
1. Learned counsel for the appellants wants to withdraw the present application for suspension of sentence qua appellant No.1 Inderpal, but seeks liberty to file a fresh application after a period of one year from today.
2. Hence, the present application for suspension of sentence is hereby dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
3. So far as appellant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.25/2017:
| Offence | Sentence | Fine | Sentence in default of fine |
| Sec.147 IPC | 1 year’s R.I. | Rs.500/- | 1 month’s S.I. |
| Sec.148 IPC | 2 year’s R.I. | Rs.1,000/- | 2 month’s S.I. |
| Sec.341 IPC | 1 month’s S.I. | Rs.500/- | 5 days’ S.I. |
| Sec.302 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.5000/- | 2 years’ S.I. |
| Sec.325 IPC | 3 years’ R.I. | Rs.1,000/- | 1 month’s S.I. |
| Sec.323 IPC | 1 year’s S.I. | Rs.500/- | 1 month’s S.I. |
2. The appellant-applicant Nos.2 and 3 have preferred the application for suspension of sentence under Section 430 B.N.S.S./389 Cr.P.C. 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 Nos.2 and 3 is that they were on bail during trial and no specific role has been assigned to them and there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in near future, thus, the sentence of the applicant Nos.2 & 3 be suspended and he be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence with the submission that as the appellant- applicant Nos.2 & 3 have committed heinous offence, suspension of sentence of such offender would send adverse message in the society.
5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
6. Looking to the fact that criminal appeals pertaining to year 2008 also are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing of the present appeal in near future.
7. In the present case as observed herein-before, the appellant- applicant Nos.2 & 3 were on bail during the trial and apparently, there are no chances of hearing of the present appeal in near future. Except for the fact that the appellant-applicant Nos.2 & 3 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 sentence.
8. Consequently, without making any observations on merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellant-applicants, namely, (2) Rajesh Kumar S/o Ramniwas & (3) Subhash Candra S/o Devi Lal, during the pendency of the appeal.
9. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 430 B.N.S.S./389 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed and it is ordered that sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 20.11.2024 in Sessions Case No.25/2017 against the appellant-applicant, namely, (2) Rajesh Kumar S/o Ramniwas & (3) Subhash Candra S/o Devi Lal shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 14.10.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:
1. That they will appear before the trial court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
2. Tha
