[2026:RJ-JD:16960]

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

No. 974/2025

1. Tejbahadur Singh S/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ward No 07 Aniya Road Amloh,police Station Amloh,district Fatehgarh Sahib (Pb)

2. Gurvinder Singh S/o Prem Singh, Aged about 22 Years, R/o Jivansingh wala Salana, Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib (PB)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

10/04/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been moved on behalf of the applicants in the matter of judgment dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases (Additional District & Sessions Judge), Churu, District Churu in Sessions Case No. 65/2020, whereby they were convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment of 10 years’ R.I. along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act and lesser punishment for the other offences under Sections

8/29 of the NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the legal and factual aspects, resulting in an erroneous finding of guilt. Being the first appellate court, this Court may reappraise the evidence.

It is further submitted that as the appeal will take time for disposal, the sentence deserves to be suspended.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. The distinction between grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC ( corresponding to Section 483 BNSS)and suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC ( corresponding to Section 430 BNSS)is well settled. While the former operates at the pre-conviction stage, the latter comes into play post- conviction and requires the appellate court to assess, prima facie, the sustainability of the conviction and sentence under challenge.

6. Upon conviction, the presumption of innocence stands displaced; however, while considering suspension of sentence, the appellate court is required to evaluate whether the grounds raised in appeal disclose a substantial and arguable case. If the material on record suggests that the findings of the trial court may be debatable, the discretion under Section 389 CrPC ( corresponding to Section 430 BNSS) can be justifiably invoked.Where the appeal raises issues which, on prima facie consideration, indicate a reasonable possibility of success, including reversal or modification of conviction, the sentence may be suspended pending adjudication.

7. This Court is guided by the enunciation of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muna Bisoi v. State of Odisha (February 16, 2026) , wherein it has been held that prolonged pendency of criminal appeals, not attributable to the convict, constitutes a valid ground for suspension of sentence. Reliance has also been placed on Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 291 , wherein the Supreme Court deprecated continued incarceration of convicts for long periods during pendency of appeals, observing that such practice would amount to a travesty of justice.

8. It is equally settled that while considering such application, the appellate court is not required to record conclusive findings on merits, as that would prejudice the final adjudication. A prima facie satisfaction regarding the arguability and substance of the grounds would suffice. The appellate jurisdiction being a continuation of trial, the entire evidence remains open to re-appreciation. The court may ultimately affirm, modify, or set aside the conviction, or alter the sentence, depending upon the outcome of such re-

evaluation.

9. Additionally, even where conviction is sustained, the nature of offence or quantum of sentence may warrant reconsideration at the appellate stage,