In determining whether to suspend a sentence pending appeal, the court must balance the gravity of the offence and prima facie merits against custodial duration and the likelihood of delay in final hearing, as prolonged incarceration without appellate resolution may be deemed unjustified.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. (ORAL)

CRL.M. (BAIL) 1265/2024 in CRL.A. 674/2024

1. The present application has been filed under Section 430 and Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], seeking suspension of sentence and release of the appellant on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The captioned appeal has been preferred by the appellant, seeking setting aside of Judgment of Conviction dated 20.03.2024 and Order on Sentence dated 23.04.2024, passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 326/2017 in FIR No. 94/2017, registered at PS Badarpur, whereby, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 302/379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] and has been sentenced, inter alia, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. He has been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and payment of fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Section 379 IPC and, in default of the payment of fine, he shall undergo one month simple imprisonment.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that about one month before the incident, the appellant, who was the tenant of the complainant, that is, the father of the victim, had a quarrel with the victim over some issue and had threatened to kill the victim in case he asked him to vacate the room or settle his dues. On 01.03.2017, while the victim was sleeping in his under construction house, on getting a chance, the appellant killed him and thereafter fled with the motorcycle and mobile phone of the victim. The stolen mobile phone of the victim was later recovered from PW-Sanjay Babu, to whom the appellant had sold the same for an amount of Rs. 2000/-.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction is based on conjectures and surmises and that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence, with none of the circumstances having been conclusively proved or forming a complete chain.

5. It is contended that there is no eyewitness to the incident and that the so-called “last seen” witness, that is, PW-4 is an interested witness whose testimony suffers from material contradictions.

6. It is further argued that there was neither any recovery of weapon of offence from the appellant, nor was the motorcycle and phone of the deceased recovered from the appellant’s possession.

7. It is contended that the prosecution case is based primarily on the complainant’s testimony which is untrustworthy and, in any case, shall be examined in detail at the final hearing of the appeal.

8. It is also submitted that no labourer working at the construction site has been examined by the prosecution to ensure if anyone of them had seen the appellant sitting with the deceased and playing cards. It is argued that PW-4, the alleged witness to have last seen the victim, is a planted witness and in any case, he allegedly saw the victim and the appellant together at 6.00 pm, while the information regarding the murder was received at 11.00 pm, and therefore, the possibility of someone else coming to the house and committing the murder, cannot be ruled out.

9. In compliance of the previous Order dated 06.11.2025 of this Court, it is submitted that an affidavit detailing the past criminal involvements of the appellant has been placed on record w