Rajasthan HC Extends Parity In Sentence Suspension For Life Convict

The Rajasthan High Court granted suspension of sentence to a man convicted of abduction, citing the principle of parity and the debatable nature of the trial court's findings.

A vacation bench comprising Justice Kuldeep Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma considered the application for suspension of sentence moved by a convict currently lodged at Central Jail Jodhpur. The court was tasked with determining whether the appellant, sentenced to life imprisonment, deserved interim relief pending his appeal.

Judicial Consistency and the Principle of Parity

The High Court observed that a co-accused in the same case, Raju Singh @ Rajendra Singh, had already been granted suspension of sentence by a coordinate bench. The petitioner’s counsel argued that since the case of the present appellant was not on a worse footing than that of the co-accused, he was entitled to similar relief. The Public Prosecutor could not refute the fact that the co-accused's sentence had indeed been suspended.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 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 can be justifiably invoked."

Observations on Section 364-A IPC and Custody Period

The Court noted that the appellant had already remained in custody for more than four and a half years and had not misused his liberty while on bail during the trial. Furthermore, the bench found weight in the argument that the conviction under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code might be unsustainable, as the alleged abduction was linked to a land dispute rather than a pure demand for ransom, and the victim was released unharmed.

The Court has following directions:

"1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court."

Background:

The dispute originated from an incident leading to Criminal Sessions Case No. 10/2016, where the appellant was convicted on April 4, 2026, by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 04, Jodhpur Metropolitan. He was found guilty under Sections 364-A, 365, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the trial court misappreciated evidence and that the dispute was essentially civil in nature regarding a land conflict between co-accused Jitendra Singh and Lokesh Saran.

Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Muna Risol v. State of Odisha and Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab ( "(1977) 4 SCC 291": 1977 CaseBase(SC) 217), the High Court reiterated that prolonged pendency of appeals and long periods of incarceration without certain disposal constitute valid grounds for suspension. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, directing the appellant's release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties.

Case Details:
Case No.: D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 978/2026
NeutralCitation: 2026:RJ-JD:27993-DB
Case Title: Ridmal Singh v. State Of Rajasthan
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Firoz Khan
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 81