Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench Suspends Sentence in Lekhraj Meena v. State of Rajasthan: Principles on Bail Pending Appeal Reiterate

Date of Judgment: 02.12.2025

The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uma Shanker Vyas, has allowed an application for suspension of sentence filed by accused–applicant Lekhraj Meena in S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 3120/2025, arising out of Sessions Case No. 01/2020. The order, passed on 02.12.2025 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 2413/2025, once again reiterates the settled approach of appellate courts while considering suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during the pendency of a criminal appeal.

In this matter, the appellant, aged about 30 years and presently confined in Central Jail, Jaipur, had approached the High Court assailing his conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Along with the appeal, he moved an application seeking suspension of the substantive sentence, essentially praying for bail during the pendency of the appeal. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.

On behalf of the accused–applicant, it was argued that there was no reliable and legally acceptable evidence on record to justify his conviction for the alleged offences. The counsel submitted that the appeal raises substantial questions and that the applicant has every likelihood of succeeding in the criminal appeal. Importantly, it was pointed out that during the course of the trial the accused–applicant had remained on bail and there was no allegation of misuse of liberty or violation of conditions during that period. This past conduct on bail is a significant factor which appellate courts routinely take into account while deciding applications for suspension of sentence. 

Another plank of the defence argument was the likely delay in disposal of the criminal appeal. Given the docket position of appellate courts and the time that final hearing may ordinarily take, it was submitted that continued incarceration of the appellant, despite an arguable case on merits, would cause undue prejudice. The accused–applicant also expressed willingness to deposit the entire fine amount imposed by the trial court. This readiness to comply with the monetary component of the sentence further weighed in favour of granting him interim indulgence.

The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. Although the order does not detail the specific grounds of opposition, such resistance generally stems from the gravity of the offence, the nature of evidence, and concerns regarding the possibility of absconding or tampering with witnesses. Nevertheless, the Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record, proceeded to form an opinion on the application.

Without entering into a threadbare examination of the merits or demerits of the conviction, the High Court recorded that, considering the arguments advanced, it deemed it just and proper to suspend the sentence awarded to the applicant. This approach is in line with the settled law that, at the stage of suspension of sentence, the appellate court is not required to conduct a mini trial or reappreciate evidence in detail. It must, however, satisfy itself that the appeal is not frivolous, that there is an arguable case, and that factors such as the period of sentence, conduct of the accused and delay in final hearing justify the grant of bail during appeal.

The Court, therefore, allowed the application for suspension of sentence subject to an important condition: the accused–applicant must deposit the fine imposed by the learned trial court. Only upon such deposition does the benefit of suspension of sentence become operative. This reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that while the liberty of the appellant is protected, the punitive and deterrent element of the monetary fine is not kept in abeyance. 

In terms of conditions, the order directs that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused–applicant, Lekhraj Meena son of Shri Murari Lal Meena, shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal. He is to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 along with two sureties of ₹50,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court has further stipulated that the appellant must appear before the High Court on 05.01.2026 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so. These conditions are consistent with the objective of securing the presence of the appellant at future hearings and preventing any abuse of the concession granted.

From a legal standpoint, this order fits within the broader framework of Section 389 CrPC, which empowers the appellate court to suspend execution of the sentence pending appeal and release the convict on bail. Indian appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, have repeatedly emphasised that when the appeal is likely to take considerable time for final disposal, and the convict has already undergone a substantial part of the sentence or has a credible case on merits, suspension of sentence may be justified, particularly where the accused has not misused liberty when previously on bail. The present order of the Rajasthan High Court reflects adherence to these guiding principles in a concise but clear manner.

The fact that the Court has explicitly refrained from commenting on the merits of the case is also notable. Any detailed observations at this stage could prejudice the appeal, either against the appellant or the prosecution. By confining itself to a broad satisfaction that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence, the High Court preserves the sanctity of the future appellate hearing while simultaneously ensuring that the appellant is not unnecessarily kept in custody during a potentially long wait.

For practitioners and litigants, this judgment from the Jaipur Bench underscores key practical takeaways. First, prior conduct on bail during trial remains a strong factor in favour of suspension of sentence. Second, a clear statement regarding the readiness to deposit the entire fine amount can further strengthen an application. Third, demonstrating that the appeal raises arguable issues and that final hearing will reasonably take time continues to be central to the Court’s consideration. Lastly, compliance with conditions such as personal bonds, sureties and regular appearance dates is critical; any breach could lead to cancellation of the suspension order.

In conclusion, the decision in Lekhraj Meena v. State of Rajasthan reinforces the balanced approach adopted by the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, in dealing with applications for suspension of sentence in criminal appeals. While respecting the trial court’s conviction, the High Court has ensured that the appellant’s right to personal liberty is not unduly curtailed during the pendency of his appeal, subject to stringent financial and attendance conditions. This order will serve as a useful reference for future applications seeking suspension of sentence in similar criminal matters before the Rajasthan High Court.

Read Complete Order here

By Advocate Bhuvnesh Kumar Goyal