[2026:RJ-JD:7222-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)

No. 2241/2025 Virma Ram S/o Suja Ram, Aged About 53 Years, Chananiya, Ps Gadraroad, Dist. Barmer (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.D. Khatri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

10/02/2026

1. Appellant-applicant, a convict, is before this Court seeking suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of his appeal and seeks bail.

2. Vide impugned judgment dated 15.01.2019 passed by the learned Session Judge, Barmer in Sessions Case No. 38/2017 appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below:

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, as per the custody report, the petitioner has undergone an actual sentence of 10 years, 03 months and 16 days as on 07.01.2026, and 12 years, 05 months and 10 days including remission. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the directions pertaining to ‘life convicts in jail whose appeals are pending before the High Court’ in terms of order/judgment dated dated 15.09.2022 rendered by the Supreme Court in Sonadhar v. The State of Chhattisgarh¹, the sentence of the applicant be suspended. He be thus enlarged on bail. Relevant extract of judgment, ibid, is reproduced herein below:

“We consider appropriate to issue directions in terms of the aforesaid suggestions to the Patna High Court and on a pari materia basis to even the other High Courts. However, in order to carry out this exercise, the data would have to be compiled of such of the persons who have been in custody for more than 10 years and more than 14 years, with these persons being considered for grant of bail pending appeal, if there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in the near future, unless there are reasons for denial of bail. We can understand if any of the parties is delaying the appeal itself but short of that, we are of the view that all persons who have completed 10 years of sentence and appeal is not in proximity of hearing with no extenuating circumstances should be enlarged on bail.”

5. It is further contended that there exist no reasons or extenuating circumstances warranting denial of bail to the applicant. Reliance is also placed on Apex Court judgment in Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh², wherein observations were made regarding grant of bail to convicts who have undergone a substantial period of incarceration during the pendency of their appeals before the High Court, subject to certain exceptions. The relevant portion qua the exceptions is reproduced below:

"1. Heinous nature of crime:

(a) Prohibited categories : To ensure public peace and the well-being of the society, life convicts who are hardened criminals, repeat offenders, kidnappers, in crimes related to massacre (three or more than three murders), habitual criminals, and fall in prohibited categories as per the U.P.

Jail Standing Policy- no bail should be granted. "

1 SLP (Crl.) No. 529/2021

2 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for suspension of sentence, submitting that the appellant- applicant has been convicted of a heinous offence and that his release on bail would send an adverse message to society. However, it is not disputed that the appellant-applicant has already undergone more than 10 years of incarceration as on

07.01.2026, both during trial and post-conviction.

7. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

8. In light of the Supreme Court Judgments, ibid, continued detention aft