CRLR No. 248 of 2026 with Bail Application No. 1 of 2026, 2026

The revisionist faced criminal trial arising out of an FIR lodged in the year 2018.

Charges were framed against him under Sections 363 and 506 IPC.

The trial court delivered judgment on 28.02.2026.

The accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 506 IPC.

However, he was convicted under Section 363 IPC.

The trial court sentenced him to seven years’ simple imprisonment along with fine.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revisionist preferred a statutory criminal appeal before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee.

Along with the appeal, he filed an application seeking bail and suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal.

The appellate court admitted the appeal on 06.03.2026 but rejected the application for suspension of sentence on the same day.

The appellate court mainly interpreted Section 430(1) BNSS and observed that suspension of sentence was not mandatory because the provision was directory in nature.

The revisionist challenged the rejection order before the Uttarakhand High Court through a criminal revision petition.

Before the High Court, it was argued that the revisionist had remained on bail throughout the trial and had never misused the liberty granted to him.

It was further contended that after conviction he voluntarily surrendered before seeking bail.

The revisionist also argued that the conviction itself was legally unsustainable because the age of the victim had not been determined according to the procedure prescribed under the Juvenile Justice Act.

It was additionally argued that the victim herself had not supported the prosecution case during trial.

The State did not dispute the fact that the revisionist had never misused bail during the trial proceedings.

The High Court observed that once the criminal appeal against conviction had been admitted, the Appellate Court was duty-bound to examine the merits of the conviction.

The Court held that the appellate judge failed to apply judicial mind while deciding the application for suspension of sentence.

The High Court stated that instead of assessing whether the conviction was legally sustainable, the appellate court unnecessarily focused on interpreting whether Section 430(1) BNSS was directory or mandatory.

Justice Rakesh Thapliyal observed that such an approach was legally incorrect in a statutory criminal appeal.

The Court emphasized that while deciding suspension of sentence, the appellate court must evaluate whether the conviction appears prima facie bad or unsustainable.

The High Court also considered the fact that the revisionist remained on bail throughout the trial and never misused the liberty granted to him.

The Court further noted that the sentence awarded was only seven years’ simple imprisonment.

The Court also took into account the arguments relating to improper determination of the victim’s age under the Juvenile Justice Act and the fact that the victim had not supported the prosecution case.

Considering all relevant circumstances, the High Court held that the revisionist deserved to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the appeal.

Consequently, the criminal revision was allowed.

The order rejecting suspension of sentence was quashed.

The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court were suspended during pendency of the criminal appeal.

The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts must exercise their discretion judicially while considering applications for suspension of sentence.

The Court clarified that admission of a criminal appeal itself requires a preliminary judicial assessment regarding arguable merits in the conviction.

The decision emphasizes that procedural interpretation alone cannot substitute substantive examination of the conviction’s legality.

The judgment strengthens the rights of convicts seeking suspension of sentence during pendency of appeals, particularly where the sentence is not excessively severe and liberty was never misused earlier.

The Court highlighted the importance of proper judicial reasoning and condemned mechanical disposal of bail applications.

The ruling also underscores the significance of compliance with procedures under the Juvenile Justice Act for age determination of victims.

The decision may guide subordinate appellate courts in future cases involving Section 430 BNSS and suspension of sentence applications.

The judgment promotes the broader principles of fair hearing, judicial accountability, and reasoned orders in criminal appellate proceedings.