In a significant order reflecting the evolving jurisprudence on bail for long-serving convicts, the Rajasthan High Court has suspended the life sentence of an appellant who has been in custody for over 10 years, directing his release on bail pending appeal. The decision, grounded in recent Supreme Court directives, underscores the judiciary's balancing act between the gravity of the offence and the right to speedy justice.
Background & Facts
The Conviction
The applicant, Kaliya s/o Mena Lakhumbra, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Udaipur, on 01.03.2019. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000, and in default of payment, an additional three months' simple imprisonment. The conviction arose from Sessions Case No. 14/2016, though the judgment does not detail the factual circumstances of the offence.
Procedural History
The timeline of the case is critical to understanding the court's reasoning:
- 01.03.2019: Conviction and sentencing by Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Udaipur
- Post-01.03.2019: Applicant lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur, serving sentence
- 2025: Applicant files D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2410/2025 before the Rajasthan High Court, seeking suspension of sentence and bail under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), corresponding to Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
- 28.03.2026: Present order passed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court
The Applicant's Position
The applicant's counsel argued that:
- The applicant has been in custody for more than 10 years, including pre-conviction detention
- There is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future, given the pendency of criminal appeals from as early as 2008
- The Supreme Court's directives in Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh (SLP (Crl.) No. 529/2021) and Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP (Crl.) No. 4633/2021) mandate the grant of bail in such circumstances, barring exceptional cases
- No extenuating circumstances exist to deny bail in this case
The State's Position
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application but did not dispute the factual claim that the applicant has undergone more than 10 years of custody.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought:
- Suspension of the substantive sentence of life imprisonment
- Release on bail pending the final disposal of the appeal
- Compliance with the conditions to be imposed by the court
The Legal Issue
The central question before the court was whether a convict sentenced to life imprisonment, who has undergone more than 10 years of custody and whose appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future, is entitled to suspension of sentence and bail under Section 389 CrPC (Section 430 BNSS), in light of the Supreme Court's directives in Sonadhar and Saudan Singh.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The applicant's counsel relied on the following legal foundations:
- Supreme Court Directives: Cited Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the Supreme Court issued mandatory directions for the grant of bail to life convicts who have served more than 10 years and whose appeals are not likely to be heard soon, unless exceptional circumstances exist
- Delay in Appeal Hearing: Argued that criminal appeals from 2008 are still pending, indicating systemic delays that infringe upon the right to speedy justice
- Absence of Extenuating Circumstances: Contended that no reasons were presented to justify the denial of bail, such as the convict's conduct in prison or the likelihood of tampering with evidence
For the Respondent
The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposed the application but did not present specific legal arguments or extenuating circumstances to counter the applicant's plea. The opposition appeared to be procedural rather than substantive, as the State did not dispute the factual matrix of the case.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court conducted a principled analysis of the legal framework governing suspension of sentence and bail, guided by the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence:
-
Supreme Court's Mandate: The court noted that the Supreme Court, in Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, issued binding directions to High Courts to compile data of life convicts who have been in custody for more than 10 and 14 years and to consider them for bail if their appeals are not likely to be heard soon. The court observed:
"We consider appropriate to issue directions in terms of the aforesaid suggestions to the Patna High Court and on a pari materia basis to even the other High Courts. However, in order to carry out this exercise, the data would have to be compiled of such of the persons who have been in custody for more than 10 years and more than 14 years, with these persons being considered for grant of bail pending appeal, if there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in the near future, unless there are reasons for denial of bail."
The court further relied on the observations in Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which laid down a similar threshold for granting bail to long-serving convicts.
-
Application to the Present Case: The court found that the applicant had undergone more than 10 years of custody, and there was no indication that the appeal would be heard in the near future. Critically, the State failed to bring on record any extenuating circumstances - such as the convict's conduct in prison, the risk of absconding, or the likelihood of influencing witnesses - that would justify denying bail. The court held:
"Except for the fact that the appellant-applicant was involved in offence leading to his conviction for life, nothing has been brought on record by way of extenuating circumstances for denial of suspension of sentence."
-
Balancing Gravity and Justice: While acknowledging the gravity of the offence (murder under Section 302 IPC), the court emphasized that the right to speedy justice and the principle of proportionality necessitated the suspension of sentence. The court clarified that its decision was not an assessment of the merits of the appeal but a procedural relief grounded in the delayed justice faced by the applicant.
-
Conditions for Bail: The court imposed strict conditions to ensure the applicant's compliance with the judicial process, including:
- Execution of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each
- Annual appearance before the trial court in January of every year until the appeal is decided
- Reporting change of address to the trial court and High Court counsel
- Maintenance of attendance records by the trial court in a separate file, not to be counted for statistical purposes
- Cancellation of bail if the applicant fails to appear before the trial court
The Verdict
The Rajasthan High Court allowed the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC (Section 430 BNSS) and ordered the following:
- The substantive sentence of life imprisonment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Udaipur, in Sessions Case No. 14/2016 shall remain suspended until the final disposal of the appeal
- The applicant shall be released on bail, subject to the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each
- The applicant must appear before the trial court in January of every year and report any change of address to the trial court and High Court counsel
- The trial court shall maintain a separate file for the applicant's attendance records, which shall not be counted for statistical purposes
- Non-compliance with any condition will result in the cancellation of bail and a report to the High Court
What This Means For Similar Cases
Life Convicts Entitled to Bail After 10 Years in Custody
This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court's directives in Sonadhar and Saudan Singh, establishing a near-mandatory threshold for granting bail to life convicts who have served more than 10 years of custody. Practitioners should note:
- High Courts are bound to consider such applications favorably unless extenuating circumstances are demonstrated by the State
- The burden of proof shifts to the State to justify denial of bail, failing which the court is inclined to grant relief
- Systemic delays in hearing appeals will no longer be tolerated as a ground to deny bail
Extenuating Circumstances Must Be Specific
The judgment clarifies that generic opposition to bail applications, without specific extenuating circumstances, will not suffice. The State must demonstrate:
- Conduct of the convict in prison (e.g., disciplinary issues, attempts to influence witnesses)
- Risk of absconding or non-compliance with judicial processes
- Likelihood of tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses
- Public safety concerns if the convict is released
In the absence of such evidence, courts are likely to grant bail under Section 389 CrPC (Section 430 BNSS).
Trial Courts Must Maintain Compliance Records
The judgment imposes a procedural obligation on trial courts to:
- Maintain a separate file for attendance records of convicts released on bail under Section 389 CrPC
- Exclude these records from statistical calculations of pendency and disposal
- Monitor compliance and report non-compliance to the High Court for cancellation of bail
This ensures accountability and transparency in the bail process for long-serving convicts.
Implications for Right to Speedy Justice
The judgment underscores the constitutional right to speedy justice under Article 21 of the Constitution. Key takeaways include:
- Delays in appeal hearings cannot be used to deny bail to convicts who have served substantial portions of their sentence
- Life imprisonment does not automatically preclude bail; the duration of custody and likelihood of appeal hearing are critical factors
- Procedural fairness must be balanced with substantive justice, especially in cases of prolonged incarceration
