$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 1008/2024 ANIL KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. K. B. Upadhyay, Mr. R. R.

Tripathi and Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Advs.

versus STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Adv. and SI Umesh Dalal, PS Mundka CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

O R D E R

% 09.02.2026 CRL.M.(BAIL) 1793/2024 (suspension of sentence

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

2. The captioned appeal has been preferred by the appellant, seeking setting aside of Judgment of Conviction dated 25^th July, 2024 and Order on Sentence dated 27^th August, 2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-09, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [“Trial Court”] in Sessions Case No. 56463/2016 in FIR No. 633/2015, registered at PS Mundka, whereby, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Sections 302/394/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] and has been sentenced, inter alia, to undergo:-

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Puran Chand [“deceased”] was found murdered inside his godown on 08^th December, 2015. His son Kamal Kishore [PW-1] was informed about said incident by a labourer, pursuant to which PW-1 took the deceased to hospital in his car, but returned back midway upon realizing that his father had died. Subsequently the police was informed and FIR No.

633/2015 was registered.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction is based purely on circumstantial evidence and that the chain of circumstances is not complete. It is argued that there are material contradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses and that the recovery of weapon of offence [hammer] seems doubtful inasmuch as it was recovered from an open ground which is accessible to general public. It is also submitted that there were no independent witnesses to corroborate such recovery and that the prosecution has failed to establish motive for the crime.

5. It is further argued that the appellant has undergone almost 10 years 02 months of his sentence and his appeal being of the year 2024 is not likely to be heard in the near future. It is stated that the jail conduct of the appellant is “satisfactory” and he has clean antecedents- as stated in Affidavit filed by him today in compliance of order dated 07^th November, 2025. Ld. Counsel further states that appellant is willing to abide by all conditions imposed by the Court and prays that his sentence be suspended pending appeal.

6. Per contra, learned APP for the State opposes the application and submits that the appellant has been convicted for a heinous offence of murder and robbery. It is argued that the Trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment after due appreciation of evidence on record and that no indulgence is warranted at this stage. It is submitted that the motive of the crime was robbery and the recovery of stolen articles [wallet and phone] was effected from the appellant himself. It is also submitted that the weapon of offence [hammer] was recovered at the instance of the appellant. Ld. APP states that mere pendency of appeal is not a ground for suspension of sentence in a grave case involving life imprisonment and prayed that the application be dismissed.

7. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the record. At the stage of considering an application for suspension of sentence, the Court is not required to undertake a detailed re- appreciation of evidence, but is expected to assess whether a prima facie case for suspension is made out, keeping in view the evidence, gravity of offence, period of custody undergone, and the likelihood of early hearing of the appeal.

8. In the present case, the appellant stands convicted of offence under Sections 302/394/411 IPC a