$~115

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.A. 31/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 44/2026

DALER SINGH @ BANTY .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Ankit, Ms. Kajal Kaur and Ms.

Himani Mittal, Advocates.

versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP.

SI Sourabh Malik.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 13.01.2026 CRL.M.A. 719/2026 (for exemption

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.A. 31/2026

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Court dated 16.08.2024, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 [“IPC”], and the order on sentence dated 15.11.2025.

2. The appeal is admitted.

3. Latest Nominal Roll be requisitioned from the concerned Jail

Superintendent and be placed on record.

4. The Registry is directed to requisition the digitised copy of the

Trial Court record, with proper indexation, pagination, and bookmarks.

5. The appeal be listed in the regular list, in its own turn.

CRL.M.(BAIL) 44/2026 (suspension of sentence

6. By an order on sentence 15.11.2025, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years alongwith a fine of Rs. 30,000/-. At the stage of sentencing, upon an application under Section 389(3) of the Code of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”] [corresponding to Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023], the sentence was suspended for a period of 30 days, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-. The bail bonds were furnished and accepted by the Sessions Court.

7. Since the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant does not exceed three years, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 389(3) of the CrPC. In Sudhir Kumar Jain v. State of Delhi [Criminal Appeal No. 1652/2007, decided on 30.11.2007], the Supreme Court recognised the power of the Appellate Court to suspend the sentence and release a convict on bail during the pendency of the appeal where the sentence does not exceed three years, and observed as follows:

“6. Keeping in view the fact that the appeals are not being disposed of expeditiously by Appellate Courts, Legislature, in its wisdom, has enacted Section 389, Code of Criminal Procedure Sub-section (3) of which empowers the Trial Court to suspend the sentence of such convicts, who have been convicted for a period not exceeding three years, for such period as will afford them sufficient time to present an appeal. Section 389 also empowers the Appellate Court including the High Court to suspend the sentence and release the convict on bail during the pendency of the appeal in case the period of sentence does not exceed three years.”

8. In view of the above, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is suspended during the pendency of the captioned appeal, subject to the appellant furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Sessions Court, and subject to the following conditions:

a. The appellant shall provide his mobile number to the concerned Investigating Officer [“IO”] / Station House Officer, which shall be kept in a working condition at all times. The mobile number shall not be switched off or changed without prior intimation to the IO during the pendency of the appeal.

b. The appellant shall furnish his permanent address to the IO, as also the address at which he is residing during the pendency of the appeal, within one week from today, and shall inform the IO and this Court in the event of any change of address.

c. The appellant shall appear before the Court as and when the appeal is taken up for hearing, and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

d. The appellant shall not commit any offence during the period of his release.

9. I am informed that the fine imposed by the impugned order has not yet been paid. Accordingly, the