Sandeep vs State of Uttarakhand - 2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1646

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1646

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Rakesh Thapliyal, J
Sandeep – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
CRLR No. 248 of 2026 | Bail Appl. No. 1 of 2026

Important Points

The Appellate Court must evaluate the merits of a conviction when considering the suspension of a sentence under Section 430(1) of BNSS 2023, rather than dismissing the application by treating the provision as merely directory.

Subject

Criminal Law - Bail and Suspension of Sentence

Act Referred

Indian Penal Code: S.363, S.506
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.430(1)
J.J. Act

Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Suspension of Sentence - Interpretation of Section 430(1) of BNSS 2023 - An Appellate Court must examine the merits of the conviction when considering the suspension of a sentence; treating the provision as merely directory without applying judicial mind to the merits is impermissible. (Para 5, 6)

(B) Bail - Pendency of Appeal - Where the convict was on bail during the trial and the statutory appeal against conviction has been admitted, the court may suspend the sentence and grant bail during the pendency of the appeal. (Para 10)

Issues: Whether the Appellate Court erred in treating Section 430(1) of BNSS 2023 as directory and refusing to suspend the sentence without examining the merits of the conviction.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinod Kumar Jemini, Ashish Kumar Jemini
For the Respondents: Sweta Badola Dobhal

Table of Content
1. background of conviction and the subsequent filing of a statutory appeal for suspension of sentence. (Para 3 , 4)
2. misinterpretation of section 430(1) of bnss 2023 by the lower court as directory rather than examining conviction merits. (Para 5 , 6)
3. arguments for bail based on trial conduct, victim's age determination, and lack of prosecution support. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. granting of bail and suspension of sentence pending the outcome of the statutory appeal. (Para 10 , 11)

Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings
SL. No.	Date or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

1. Mr. Vinod Kumar Jemini, learned counsel with Mr. Ashish Kumar Jemini, learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist Sandeep, S/o Tej Pal against the order passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Roorkee District Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2026, titled as Sandeep vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby the application moved on behalf of the revisionist for seeking bail and suspension of sentence has been rejected.

4. The revisionist herein faced the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 506 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 603 of 2018 and the trial court by judgment and order dated 28.02.2026 convict the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC by acquitting him under Section 506 IPC. He has been sentenced to seven years simple imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine he has to further undergo two months simple imprisonment. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence of the judgment and order dated 28.02.2026, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 2747 of 2019, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Roorkee with an application for seeking bail and suspension of sentence and the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge admit the appeal on 06.03.2026 and on the same day by separate order the application for seeking bail and suspension of sentence has been rejected.

5. I perused the order passed by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge and it is very surprising that instead of going to the merits of the case, whether conviction is bad or not, the learned Judge interpret the scope of Section 430(1) of BNSS 2023 and draw an observation that it is not mandatory to the Appellate Court to suspend the enforcement of order of conviction, since, section 430 of BNSS 2023 is directory not mandatory. It appears that the 1st Addl. Session Judge, Roorkee without applying its judicial mind passed the order impugned, though appeal preferred by the revisionist (convict) is an statutory appeal which was admitted, and instead of going with the merit of the case whether conviction is bad or not, the learned Judge, interpreted the scope of Section 430(1)of BNSS 2023.

6. In my opinion the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Roorkee is failed to understand the scope of Section 430 (1) of BNSS. In one side he admitted the appeal and other side he is interpreting Section 430(1) of BNSS by saying that it is directory and not mandatory. If the convict preferred an appeal against his conviction then the Appellate Court should examine whether conviction is bad or not which is completely missing in the order impugned.

7. Heard on bail application no. 1 of 2026.

8. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that though he faced the trial for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 506 IPC, however, for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC he has been acquitted and is convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC. Learned counsel further submits that the revisionist was on bail during trial, and never misused the same and after conviction he surrendered and then moved the bail application. He also submits that co