The principle of parity governs applications for the suspension of a sentence; if the case of an applicant is factually indistinguishable from that of a co-accused already granted suspension of sentence, the applicant is entitled to the same relief to maintain consistency in judicial orders.

JUDGMENT :

BHUWAN GOYAL, J.

This suspension of sentence application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the accused-applicants (for brevity, “the applicants”) alongwith the appeal. The applicants have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Sikar (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’) vide judgment dated 29.04.2025 passed in Sessions Case No.141/2015 (BT No.16/2016) (CIS No.208/2015) as under:-

1. Under Section 148 IPC: One year’s simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each; in default whereof, seven days’ additional simple imprisonment.

2. Under Section 341 IPC: One month’s simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- each; in default whereof, five days’ additional simple imprisonment.

3. Under Section 323/149 IPC: Six months’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each; in default whereof, seven days’ additional simple imprisonment.

4. Under Section 325/149 IPC: Four years’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each; in default whereof, one month’s additional simple imprisonment.

5. Under Section 302/149 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- each; in default whereof, six months’ additional simple imprisonment.

All the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

Learned counsel for the applicants contends that they have falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that they have convicted inter alia under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC and substantive sentence of similarly situated co-accused persons namely Smt. Sayra Bano @ Guddi, Subhash Chand, Mohammad Hanif @ Idu and Mumtaz Khan have already been suspended by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.01.2026 and prays for suspension of substantive sentence awarded to them vide judgment impugned dated 29.04.2025 during pendency of the appeal.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor though, opposed the prayer but, could not dispute that the case of the applicants is not distinguishable from the case of the co-accused who have already been extended benefit of suspension of sentence.

Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant opposing the prayer, stated that the weapon of offence has been recovered on the disclosure statement made by the applicant-Shafiq Ahmed and therefore, he is disentitled for benefit of suspension of sentence.

Heard. Considered.

A perusal of the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court whereby, the suspension of sentence applications filed by the co-accused were allowed and the material on record reflects that the case of the applicants is not distinguishable from the case of the co-accused who have already been extended benefit of suspension of sentence by this Court. In view thereof, we deem it just and proper to allow the application for suspension of sentence filed by the applicants. Accordingly, the suspension of sentence application is allowed. Substantive sentences awarded to the applicants by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 29.04.2025 shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal and the applicants-1. Shafiq Ahmed S/o Shri Mumtaz Khan & 2. Sharif Ahmed S/o Shri Mumtaz Khan shall be released on bail provided each of them furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to the effect that they shall appear before this Court on or before 23.04.2026 and as and when called upon to do so till disposal of the appeal and subject to the following conditions:-

1. That they will appear before the learned trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

2. That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address(es) to the learned trial Court as well as to their learned counsel in the High Court who shall