The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on the principles governing the suspension of sentences, has held that appellate courts cannot impose conditions that are impossible for an appellant to comply with, thereby making the grant of suspension ineffective. A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside a condition imposed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court that required an appellant to deposit a fine of ₹1,00,000 as a prerequisite for the suspension of his sentence in a case under the POCSO Act.
The Court allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court’s order and directing the appellant’s release upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, without the mandatory deposit of the fine amount.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a judgment by the Special Judge, Chamba, dated December 30, 2024. The appellant, Sunny alias Sanjeev, was convicted for offences under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). He was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000, with a default clause of one year’s simple imprisonment.
The appellant challenged his conviction in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2025). During the pendency of the appeal, he filed an application (Cr.MP No. 636 of 2025) under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking suspension of his substantive sentence.
The High Court, in its order dated April 22, 2025, agreed to suspend the sentence. It noted several factors, including the prior acquaintance between the appellant and the prosecutrix, that she had accompanied him voluntarily, and the trial court’s decision to acquit him of kidnapping charges under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. The High Court also observed that the evidence regarding the prosecutrix’s age was inconclusive, with an ossification test assessing her age between 17-21 years, leaving open the possibility that she was 18 or older.
Consequently, the High Court suspended the sentence subject to the appellant furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of the like amount and depositing the fine of ₹1,00,000. The appellant then moved the Supreme Court, challenging only the condition requiring the deposit of the fine.
Arguments and Court’s Analysis
The appellant contended before the Supreme Court that he was a person of limited means with no independent income, making it impossible for him to deposit the ₹1,00,000 fine. He argued that such a condition rendered the High Court’s order of suspension “illusory.”
The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 430 of the BNSS, which empowers an appellate court to suspend the execution of a sentence, including its fine component, pending an appeal. The bench observed that while imposing conditions is permissible, they must be reasonable.
In a crucial observation, the Court stated, “While conditions may be imposed to secure the presence of the appellant and the progress of the appeal, we believe that they cannot be such as to render the order of suspension illusory for want of means. A condition which is impossible to comply with, defeats the right of appeal.”
The Court took into account that the High Court had itself recorded that the appeal was unlikely to be decided in the near future and that the appellant had already undergone custody for two years, seven months, and two days as of April 22, 2025.
The bench concluded that in these circumstances, “insisting on an upfront deposit of ₹1,00,000/- as a condition for release would, in his case, defeat the suspension that the High Court otherwise granted.” It held that justice could be secured through a personal bond, surety, and appropriate behavioural conditions.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and modified the High Court’s order dated April 22, 2025. Key directions include:
- The requirement for the appellant to deposit the fine amount of ₹1,00,000 as a pre-condition for release was deleted.
- The suspension of the substantive sentence will now operate upon the appellant furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- The fine component will remain in abeyance and its payment will depend on the final outcome of the appeal.
- All other conditions imposed by the High Court, including undertakings to appear when directed and to surrender if the appeal is dismissed, shall continue to operate.
- The Supreme Court added further conditions that the appellant shall not leave India without prior permission of the appellate court and must keep the trial court informed of his current address and mobile number.
The Court clarified that its observations are confined to the adjudication of the suspension application and shall not influence the merits of the pending criminal appeal.
