An Appellate Court is empowered under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to suspend an appellant's sentence and grant bail provided the total period of imprisonment does not exceed three years.

CRL.A. 11/2026

The captioned appeal is directed against a judgment of the Sessions Court dated 10.11.2025, and order of sentence dated 09.12.2025, by which the appellant was convicted of offences under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [“POCSO Act”], and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”]. The appeal has been admitted by order dated 06.01.2026.

At the request of the father of the prosecutrix, who is personally present, the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee is requested to provide him with legal aid counsel.

List the appeal in the Regular list, in its own turn.

CRL.M.(BAIL) 12/2026 (for suspension of sentence)

1. This is an application for suspension of sentence imposed upon the appellant in connection with his conviction in SC No. 207/2018, arising out of FIR No. 43/2018, registered under Sections 354D /506/509/34 of the IPC, and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, at PS Nangloi, Delhi.

2. By the order of sentence dated 09.12.2025, the appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in respect of the offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in respect of the offence under Section 506 of IPC. The sentences are to run concurrently.

3. At the stage of sentencing, upon an application under Section 389 (3) of the 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 one month, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, with one surety of the like amount. The bail bond was accordingly furnished and accepted by the Sessions Court.

4. The Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar Jain v. State of Delhi [Criminal Appeal No. 1652/2007], observed that Section 389 of the CrPC, empowers the Appellate Courts to suspend sentences during the pendency of appeals, where the period of sentence does not exceed three years. The Court 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.”

5. As noted above, the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of less than three years. The Nominal Roll also states that he has already undergone imprisonment of eight months and thirteen days. In view of the provisions of 389(3) of the CrPC, the sentence of the appellant is liable to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

6. It is directed that the sentence of the appellant be suspended pending disposal of the captioned appeal, subject to the appellant furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Sessions Court, and subject to the following further 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 du