The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that the right to appeal cannot be rendered illusory by imposing financial conditions that an indigent accused cannot meet. In a significant ruling, the Court recalled a fine deposit condition that had effectively kept a convict in custody despite a granted suspension of sentence, grounding its decision firmly in the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Rajesh Kushwah, was convicted under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. He had already served seven years and eleven months when the High Court granted him suspension of sentence on 7 October 2025, subject to several conditions including the deposit of a fine of Rs. 1 lakh imposed by the trial court.
Procedural History
- 10 October 2024: Conviction and sentencing by Additional Sessions Judge, Nasirabad
- 7 October 2025: High Court suspended sentence but imposed condition of fine deposit
- January 2026: Appellant filed interim application seeking recall of fine deposit condition, citing inability to pay due to poverty
- 24 January 2026: High Court heard application and recalled the condition
Relief Sought
The appellant sought release from custody despite the suspension order, arguing that the fine deposit condition rendered his right to appeal meaningless and violated his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an appellate court can impose a condition of depositing a fine as a prerequisite for suspension of sentence when the accused is indigent and unable to comply, and whether such a condition violates the right to appeal and personal liberty under Article 21.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant, though unrepresented, relied on the principle that financial incapacity must not be used to deny access to justice. He contended that the condition of fine deposit effectively nullified the suspension order and amounted to continued incarceration without trial, violating the ratio decidendi of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Sirpal.
For the Respondent
The State did not appear or file any counter-submission, leaving the Court to decide on the basis of legal principles and precedent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the balance between the power of appellate courts to impose conditions for suspension of sentence and the constitutional imperative to protect personal liberty. It emphasized that while conditions may be imposed, they must not be impossible to fulfill.
"However, the Court has to keep in mind that if a condition of the deposit of an amount is imposed while suspending the sentence of fine, the same should not be such that it is impossible for the appellant to comply with it. Such a condition may amount to defeating his right of appeal against the order of conviction, which may also violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution."
The Court relied on Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Sirpal to distinguish between offences under the NI Act, where financial conditions may be reasonable due to the nature of the offence, and those under the IPC or NDPS Act, where the focus must be on liberty and access to appellate remedies. The Court held that the appellant’s poverty rendered the condition unenforceable and therefore unconstitutional. The continued detention despite a valid suspension order was deemed a direct infringement of Article 21.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Court held that imposing an unaffordable fine deposit as a condition for suspension of sentence violates the right to appeal and personal liberty under Article 21. The condition was recalled, and the appellant was directed to be released immediately upon compliance with all other bail conditions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Fine Deposit Conditions Must Be Reasonable
- Practitioners must now challenge any fine deposit condition in suspension orders if the accused is indigent
- Courts must conduct a case-specific inquiry into the accused’s financial capacity before imposing such conditions
- Failure to do so renders the suspension order void in effect, even if formally granted
Right to Appeal Is Not Conditional on Financial Means
- Suspension of sentence is a procedural safeguard, not a privilege
- Conditioning release on payment of fines in non-economic offences undermines the purpose of appellate review
- This principle extends beyond NDPS cases to all offences under IPC, POCSO, and similar statutes where the primary harm is not pecuniary
Judicial Discretion Must Align With Constitutional Values
- Courts cannot use financial conditions as proxies for deterrence or punishment during the pendency of appeal
- The Ashok Sirpal precedent now binds all High Courts to assess financial feasibility as a mandatory step in suspension orders
- Advocates should cite this judgment when seeking recall of unworkable conditions in pending suspension applications
