1. Appeal against conviction and life sentence for murder, attempted murder, robbery, criminal conspiracy, and Arms Act offences. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Vikas Mahajan, JJ
Shashank Jadon – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
CRL.A. 1564/2025 | CRL.M.(BAIL) 2266/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Pramod Kumar, Ajay Kumar Yadav, Kanti Tiwari, Arushi Jindal, Rupinder Walia
For the Respondents: Atul Guleria, Aryan Rakesh, Divyapal Choudhary
For the Complainant: Ankur Mittal, Ipshita Dutta, Rabaica Jaiswal
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Pramod Kumar, Ajay Kumar Yadav, Kanti Tiwari, Arushi Jindal, Rupinder Walia
For the Respondents: Atul Guleria, Aryan Rakesh, Divyapal Choudhary
For the Complainant: Ankur Mittal, Ipshita Dutta, Rabaica Jaiswal
Suspension of sentence is warranted when there is a significant delay in hearing the appeal and scientific evidence (ballistics/medical) contradicts the sole eye-witness testimony, creating a prima facie case for doubt and preventing irreparable damage to the convict.
Headnote:(A) Suspension of Sentence - Long Incarceration - Where an appeal cannot be disposed of within a reasonable period, the court may release the convict on bail to prevent the travesty of justice where an innocent person remains jailed for an unduly long period. (Para 79)
(B) Evidence - Ocular vs. Scientific - Contradictions between the testimony of the sole eye-witness (stating shots were fired from a distance) and medical evidence (showing blackened abrasions indicating close-range fire) create significant doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events. (Para 68, 69)
(C) Power of Appellate Court - Section 430 BNSS / Section 389 CrPC - The court must balance societal interests with the risk of irreparable damage to the convict if they are acquitted after serving a substantial part of their sentence. (Para 80)
Issues: Whether the sentence of the appellant should be suspended during the pendency of the appeal given the long period of incarceration and contradictions in evidence.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
-
constitutional law
- right to life (Para 77)
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued contradictions in eye witness testimony versus scientific evidence; prosecution argued evidence was duly considered. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 )
3. Scientific evidence on gunshot wounds contradicted sole eye witness account; complainant's prior suspicion of witness remained unexamined. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 )
4. An order granting or rejecting suspension of sentence does not ascertain innocence or guilt; it balances incarceration period against appeal pendency. (Para 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 )
5. Sentence suspended during appeal pending final hearing, subject to conditions including bond, reporting, and non-contact with witnesses. (Para 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 )
6. When should a court suspend a life sentence pending appeal?
Ordinarily when the appeal cannot be heard within a reasonable time, unless cogent grounds exist to act otherwise. (Para 79 , 80 )
7. What is the significance of blackened abrasions in gunshot wounds for determining firing distance?
Blackened abrasions indicate a very close-range firing, typically from about 30 cm, which can contradict a claim of distant firing. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 )
8. Is a court bound by a practice not to bail a life-sentenced convict pending appeal?
No; the practice cannot prevail if it causes injustice, especially when the appeal cannot be disposed of for years. (Para 79 )
9. What factors are relevant in deciding suspension of sentence for a life convict?
Length of incarceration, appellant's age, antecedents, jail conduct, strength of prima facie case, and reasonable time for appeal hearing. (Para 81 , 82 )
10. What conditions may be imposed while suspending a life sentence?
Personal bond, surety, surrender of passport, periodic reporting to investigating officer, and prohibition on contacting witnesses. (Para 83 )
JUDGEMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CRL.M.(BAIL) 2266/2025 (suspension of sentence)
2. This is an application file by the Appellant – Shashank Jadon, u/s 430, Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , seeking suspension of his sentence during the pendency of the appeal before this Court.
3. The Appellant herein has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302/307/398/201, r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 & (hereinafter, ‘IPC’), read with Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, vide judgment dated 20th September, 2025, passed by the ld. Special Judge, (PC Act) (CBI)- 18, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi in Case No. SC/23/2019 arising out of FIR No. RC-03(S)/2016/CBI/SC-III/ New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned judgment’). The relevant portion of the conviction judgement is extracted below:
“Decision: 167. In view of the aforesaid facts established on record, the accused persons are convicted as below:-
167.1. Both the accused persons are convicted of the offences punishable u/Sec.120-B r/w Sec.302/307/398 IPC.
167.2. Accused Shashank Jadon is convicted of the offences punishable u/Sec.302/307/398/201 IPC & Sec.25&27 Arms Act.
167.3 Accused Manoj Kumar is convicted of the offences punishable u/Sec.302/34, 307/34, 398 & 201 IPC.”
4. Vide a separate order on sentence dated 13th October, 2025 passed by the ld. Trial Court, the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, and all sentences are to run concurrently. The sentence was passed in the following terms:
5. Against the impugned judgment, as well as the order on sentence, the Appellant has approached this Court by way of the present Criminal Appeal, which is pending adjudication.
6. For a proper adjudication of the instant application seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of the Appeal, this Court deems it fit to consider the background which gives rise to the Appeal.
BACKGROUND:
7. The incident in question took place on 13th April, 2015, when a young, newly married Software Engineer, working with Tata Consultancy Services – Mr. Ankit Chauhan was driving along with his friend – Gagan Dudhoria from Sector 135, Noida to Sector 76 Noida, Uttar Pradesh, in his newly purchased Toyota Fortuner Car bearing temporary number UDB 0044239.
8. The allegation against the Appellant is that he, along with 2 other co- accused persons- Manoj Kumar and Pankaj Kumar were driving a Honda Accord car bearing No. UP-14BA-2300 and were duly armed. The Appellant is stated to have fired multiple gun shots, grievously injuring the deceased Ankit Chauhan, but the co-passenger Gagan Dudhoria is stated to have narrowly escaped.
9. The Appellant and the co-accused persons were then alleged to have fled from the spot and Ankit Chauhan was rushed to the hospital, where he was declared dead.
10. An FIR was registered on a complaint by Dharamvir Chauhan- father of the deceased, being FIR No. 207/2015 at P.S. Sector 49, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. However, due to the inaction of the police, a writ petition was filed by the father of the deceased before the Allahabad High Court, seeking transfer of investigation of the case to CBI.
11. The Allahabad High Court, in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 26121 of 2015, vide order dated 26th April, 2016, had transferred the investigation of the case to CBI.
12. Thereafter, investigation was conducted by CBI and upon completion thereof, chargesheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Noida, U.P., who took cognizance of the offences.
13. However, vide an order dated 2nd August, 2019 passed by the Supreme Court, the trial of the case was transferred to Delhi. Since then, the trial took place before the ld. Trial Court in Delhi.
14. The case of CBI before the ld. Trial Court is that a conspiracy was hatched by the Appellant along with the co-accused persons, when he suffered huge losses in his business. The Appellant is stated to have hatched the said conspiracy w
