Section 389 CrPC | Life Convict Having Undergone 10+ Years Entitled to Bail on Parity with SC Guidelines : Rajasthan HC

In a significant application of the Supreme Court's guidelines on bail for life convicts, the Rajasthan High Court has suspended the sentence of an appellant who had already undergone more than 10 years of imprisonment. The Court relied on the principles laid down in Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, holding that prolonged incarceration without prospect of appeal hearing justifies suspension of sentence, absent extenuating circumstances.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Sandeep @ Sethi, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, on 16.01.2019 in Sessions Case No. 45/2015 (38/2015) for offences under Sections 302 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Aggrieved by the conviction, the petitioner filed an appeal and simultaneously sought suspension of his sentence under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) / Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Key Facts

• The petitioner was convicted for a heinous offence under Section 302 IPC (murder)
• He had already undergone 10 years, 10 months, and 21 days of imprisonment as of 06.07.2026
• The petitioner had been in Open Air Jail Camp since 08.04.2022, as reflected in a report dated 08.04.2022
• His criminal antecedents were minor, with no involvement in offences under Section 376 IPC
• The appeal against his conviction had no prospect of early hearing, given the pendency of criminal appeals from 2019

Procedural History

• 16.01.2019: Conviction and sentence by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Nohar
• Post-16.01.2019: Appeal filed before the Rajasthan High Court (exact date not mentioned)
• 08.04.2022: Petitioner shifted to Open Air Jail Camp
• 06.07.2026: Custody report submitted, showing 10 years, 10 months, and 21 days of imprisonment undergone
• 13.07.2026: Present application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 430 BNSS / 389 CrPC

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought suspension of his substantive sentence during the pendency of his appeal and release on bail, relying on the Supreme Court’s directions in Sonadhar and Saudan Singh.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether a life convict who has already undergone more than 10 years of imprisonment is entitled to suspension of sentence and bail under Section 389 CrPC / 430 BNSS, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, when the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• The petitioner had already undergone 10 years, 10 months, and 21 days of imprisonment, which is a substantial period
• There was no prospect of early hearing of the appeal, given the pendency of criminal appeals from 2019
• The petitioner had no extenuating circumstances (e.g., repeat offences, prohibited categories under jail policies) that would justify denial of bail
• Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which lay down guidelines for granting bail to life convicts whose appeals are pending for prolonged periods

For the Respondent

• The Public Prosecutor opposed the application, arguing that the petitioner had committed a heinous offence and suspending his sentence would send an adverse message to society
• However, the respondent did not dispute that the petitioner had already undergone more than 10 years of imprisonment

The Court's Analysis

The Court meticulously examined the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Sonadhar and Saudan Singh, which provide for the release of life convicts on bail if they have undergone 10 years or more of imprisonment and their appeals are unlikely to be heard soon, unless extenuating circumstances exist. The Court noted the following:

1. Pendency of Appeals: The Court observed that criminal appeals from 2019 were still pending, indicating that the petitioner’s appeal had no prospect of early hearing.

2. Supreme Court’s Directions: The Court relied on the following observations from Sonadhar:

   "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. We can understand if any of the parties is delaying the appeal itself but short of that, we are of the view that all persons who have completed 10 years of sentence and appeal is not in proximity of hearing with no extenuating circumstances should be enlarged on bail."

3. Extenuating Circumstances: The Court noted that no extenuating circumstances were brought on record by the respondent to justify denial of bail. The only ground opposed was the heinous nature of the offence, which, while relevant, was not sufficient to override the prolonged incarceration without prospect of appeal hearing.

4. Exceptions to Bail: The Court referred to the broad guidelines in Saudan Singh, which carve out exceptions for denial of bail, such as:

   • Hardened criminals, repeat offenders, kidnappers
   • Crimes involving massacre (three or more murders)
   • Habitual criminals
   • Prohibited categories under jail policies

   The Court held that none of these exceptions applied to the petitioner.

5. Balancing Interests: The Court balanced the petitioner’s right to liberty against the societal interest in deterrence, concluding that the prolonged incarceration without prospect of appeal hearing tipped the scales in favour of suspending the sentence.

The Verdict

The Court allowed the application for suspension of sentence under Section 430 BNSS / 389 CrPC and ordered the following:

• The substantive sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Nohar, in Sessions Case No. 45/2015 (38/2015) shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal
• The petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:
  • Execution of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each
  • Appearance before the trial court in January of every year until the appeal is decided
  • Written intimation to the trial court and High Court counsel in case of change of address by the petitioner or sureties
• The trial court shall maintain a separate file for the petitioner’s attendance, registered as a Criminal Miscellaneous Case relating to the original conviction
• Non-appearance before the trial court shall result in reporting to the High Court for cancellation of bail

What This Means For Similar Cases

Prolonged Incarceration Justifies Suspension of Sentence

• Life convicts who have undergone 10+ years of imprisonment may now seek suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC / 430 BNSS, even for heinous offences, if their appeals are unlikely to be heard soon
• Courts are obliged to consider the duration of incarceration as a primary factor in such applications, absent extenuating circumstances

Extenuating Circumstances Must Be Specific

• The burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate specific extenuating circumstances (e.g., repeat offences, prohibited categories under jail policies) to deny bail
• General objections (e.g., "heinous offence,