$~93 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 25/2026 MANDEEP @ MUFA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar and Mr. Deepak Sidhu, Advocates versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 02.02.2026 CRL.M.(BAIL) 207/2026 (suspension of sentence

1. The captioned appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.08.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Court, whereby the appellant [applicant herein] was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and the subsequent order on sentence dated 15.11.2025, by which the appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-.

2. The appeal was admitted by order dated 08.01.2026; however, the sentence could not be suspended at that stage, as no application seeking suspension of sentence had been filed.

3. By way of the present application, the applicant seeks suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal.

4. It may be noted that the learned Sessions Court had initially suspended the sentence for a period of 30 days vide the order on sentence dated 15.11.2025. The said suspension was thereafter extended on two occasions, the last extension being until 17.01.2026, by order dated

09.01.2026.

5. The applicant initially sought suspension of sentence by filing CRL.M.(BAIL) 130/2026. The application was adjourned to enable the applicant to surrender, as the period of suspension of sentence had already expired. Subsequently, a similar application, CRL.M.(BAIL) 207/2026, was taken up on 30.01.2026 and adjourned for the same purpose. Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, stated that the applicant would surrender on the next scheduled date before the Trial Court, i.e., 31.01.2026, and I am informed that the applicant has since surrendered.

6. Mr. Kumar has handed over a copy of an order of the learned Sessions Court dated 31.01.2026, reflecting that the applicant has surrendered before the Court. A copy of the said order is taken on record. Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, upon instructions from the Investigating Officer, also confirms the aforesaid position.

7. Having regard to the sentence imposed upon the applicant, which is for a period of two years, the matter falls within the parameters of Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [corresponding to Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973].

8. As the sentence of imprisonment does not exceed three years, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of Section 389(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court, in Sudhir Kumar Jain v. State of Delhi [Criminal Appeal No. 1652/2007], has recognized the power of the Appellate Court to suspend sentence and release a convict on bail during the pendency of an appeal where the sentence does not exceed three years, observing 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 exceedthree years.”

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