##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)

No. 862/2026

Devkaran S/o Jagdish Chhimpa, Aged About 39 Years, Resident

Of Kikarwali, Police Station Muklava, District Sri Ganganagar,

Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged At Central Jail Sri Ganganagar)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2322/2025

Devkaran S/o Jagdish Chhimpa, Aged About 39 Years, Devkaran

Son Of Jagdish Chhimpa, Age About 39 Years, Resident Of

Kikarwali, Police Station Muklava, District Sri Ganganagar,

Rajasthan. (Lodged In Central Jail Sri Ganganagar)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. BS Sandhu

For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Chandawat, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

14/05/2026

S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application

(Appeal) No. 862/2026:-

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment

(Uploaded on 15/05/2026 at 10:24:11 AM)

(Downloaded on 18/05/2026 at 11:35:45 PM)

(2 of 6) [SOSA-862/2026]

dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge,

NDPS Act Cases, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case

No.04/2020 whereby he was convicted and sentenced to

suffer maximum imprisonment of 20 years under Sections

8/22 and 8/22 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act along

with fine and default sentence.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant 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. The

sentence of co-accused of this case has also been suspended

by this Court vide order dated 27.04.2026 in S.B. Criminal

SOS Application No.2062/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal

No.2535/2025.

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

(Uploaded on 15/05/2026 at 10:24:11 AM)

(Downloaded on 18/05/2026 at 11:35:45 PM)

(3 of 6) [SOSA-862/2026]

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

arguab