Post-conviction suspension of sentence requires a prima facie showing of a fair chance of acquittal based on palpable errors in the record, as the presumption of innocence is erased upon conviction; long incarceration alone is not a sufficient ground when allegations are grave.

O R D E R

CRL.M.(BAIL) 2003/2025 (suspension of sentence)

1. This is an application seeking suspension of sentence and for grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal filed by the appellant.

2. Vide judgment dated 03.09.2025, appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 354/506 IPC and Section 10 of POCSO Act and vide order on sentence dated 03.09.2025, he has been sentenced as under:-

a. Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 05 years [Five Years] for the commission of the offence punishable under section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Forty Thousand Only ). In the event of his failure to pay the said fine amount, the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months. All of the said fine amount, if so realized, be paid to the victim as compensation, in addition to compensation otherwise paid to the victim.

b. Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 02 years [Two Years] for the commission of the offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only ). In the event of his failure to pay the said fine amount, the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 month. All of the said fine amount, if so realized, be paid to the victim as compensation.

c. Since the convict has already been sentenced to imprisonment for the offence under section 10 of the POCSO Act 2012, hence the convict is not being sentenced separately for the offenee under section 354 of the IPC in view of the section 42 POCSOAct as the punishment under section 10 of the POCSO Act was greater in degree than section 354 of the IPG at the relevant time,

d. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that appellant has undergone more than 4 years and 4 months out of 5 years sentence awarded to him and appeal is not likely to be heard in near future and therefore, there is likelihood that the appeal may become infructuous if appellant is not granted bail.

4. The application has been vehemently opposed by the Ld. APP supported by the Ld. Counsel for the victim arguing that the Ld. Trial Court has duly appreciated the evidence on record and has passed a reasoned judgment and therefore, appellant is not entitled for the grant of bail.

5. The only ground pressed by the appellant is that he has already undergone substantial portion of sentence. No submission has been made on the merits of the case. While hearing an application for suspension of sentence, the Court has to examine whether prima facie there is any error apparent on the face of the record to indicate that the appellant has a fair chance of success in overturning his conviction.

6. In Jamnalal v. State of Rajasthan 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1641, the Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in Omprakash Sahni (supra), holding that while considering an application under Section 389 of the CrPC for suspension of sentence, the High Court ought to have examine whether there exists anything on the record to indicate that the convict has a fair chance of being acquitted. The relevant paragraphs read as under;

“10. One would have expected the High Court hearing an application under Section 389 of Cr. P.C. for suspension of sentence to examine whether prima facie there was anything palpable on the record to indicate if the accused had a fair chance of overturning the conviction.

In Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary¹, this Court had the following to say on the scope of Section 389 of the Cr. P.C.

“23. The principle