The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that prolonged incarceration pending appeal, even in heinous offences, may justify suspension of sentence under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This ruling reinforces judicial discretion to balance procedural delay against the fundamental right to liberty, setting a significant precedent for appellants languishing in custody for over a decade.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Sarfaraj @ Fouza, was convicted under Section 302 IPC (murder), Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder, two counts), and Section 25(1-b)(a)/27 of the Arms Act. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and multiple terms of rigorous imprisonment with fines. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony, with no direct confession or recovery of weapons.
Procedural History
The case originated in a trial court in 2014. Key procedural milestones include:
- 2014: Conviction and sentencing by the Sessions Court
- 2014 - 2025: Appeal pending before the High Court without final hearing
- 2025: Appellant filed I.A. No. 16030/2025 under Section 430 BNSS seeking suspension of sentence
- 07.11.2025: Certificate from Central Jail, Indore confirmed 10 years, 1 month, and 13 days of actual incarceration
Relief Sought
The appellant sought suspension of his jail sentence pending disposal of his appeal, citing excessive pre-decisional detention and the absence of any risk of flight or tampering with evidence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita permits suspension of sentence solely on the ground of prolonged incarceration pending appeal, even when the conviction is for grave offences and the State opposes relief.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the appellant had served over ten years in custody, far exceeding the average pendency of appeals in the High Court. Reliance was placed on Saudan Singh v. State of U.P. where the Supreme Court held that undue delay in appellate disposal warrants judicial intervention to prevent injustice. The certificate of incarceration was presented as conclusive proof of time served.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor conceded that the conviction was established beyond reasonable doubt but failed to demonstrate that the case fell within any exception to the Saudan Singh principle. No argument was advanced that the appellant posed a threat to society or would abscond, nor was any evidence presented to rebut the claim of prolonged detention.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the purpose of Section 430 BNSS, which empowers appellate courts to suspend sentences pending appeal to prevent irreparable hardship. It noted that while gravity of offence is a relevant factor, it cannot override the constitutional right to liberty under Article 21 when delay becomes systemic.
"The fact that the appeal has been pending since 2014 and the appellant has undergone more than ten years of incarceration cannot be ignored merely because the offence is serious. Justice delayed is justice denied, and the law must not become an instrument of punishment without trial."
The Court distinguished Saudan Singh not as a binding precedent but as a guiding principle on judicial discretion. It emphasized that suspension is not an acquittal, nor does it imply doubt on conviction; it merely suspends the execution of punishment pending final adjudication. The Court also noted that the appellant had not been granted interim bail, making the sentence suspension the only equitable remedy.
The conditions imposed - deposit of fine and furnishing a bail bond with surety - were deemed sufficient to ensure appearance and compliance.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Court held that prolonged incarceration pending appeal, even in serious offences, justifies suspension of sentence under Section 430 BNSS, provided the appellant is not a flight risk and the delay is attributable to the system. The jail sentence was suspended subject to deposit of fine and a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prolonged Incarceration Triggers Discretionary Relief
- Practitioners must now routinely file applications under Section 430 BNSS for appellants serving over 8 - 10 years pending appeal
- Courts cannot dismiss such applications merely on the basis of offence severity without evaluating delay and hardship
- Certificates from jail authorities are now prima facie evidence of time served
Suspension Is Not Acquittal
- The judgment clarifies that suspension under Section 430 BNSS does not imply doubt on conviction or weaken the prosecution’s case
- Appellants remain liable for conviction and may still be required to serve sentence if appeal fails
- This distinction is critical for bail hearings, parole applications, and future sentencing
Conditions Must Be Reasonable and Proportionate
- Bail bonds must be set at levels commensurate with the appellant’s means and risk profile
- Courts must avoid imposing impossible conditions (e.g., excessive surety, unattainable deposits)
- Deposit of fine is mandatory only if not already paid; default stipulations do not override statutory discretion
