Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43990 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP No. 5395 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 77 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.12.2025 Decided on: 17.12.2025 Fateh Chand ....Applicant/appellant Versus Central Bureau of Investigation .…Respondent/CBI Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant/appellant: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent/CBI: Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge This order shall dispose of an application filed by the applicant-appellant under Section 430 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (for short “BNSS”) seeking suspension of sentence awarded by learned Special Judge (C.B.I.), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., vide judgment of conviction dated 05.09.2025 and order of sentence dated 12.09.2025, in Corruption Trial No. 10-S/7 of 2020, whereby the applicant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43990 ) three years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 120-B of IPC, read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and Section 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of P.C. Act, four years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 420 of IPC, four years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 467 of IPC, four years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 468 of IPC and four years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 471 of IPC. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-appellant contended that the impugned judgment of conviction is the result of complete misreading and mis-appreciation of statements of prosecution witnesses, as well as the documentary evidence. She further contended that other co-accused namely Amar Singh Bodh has already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, as such, the petitioner, who is behind the bars, also deserves to be released on bail. Lastly, she prayed that the present application may be allowed and the sentence imposed upon the applicant may be suspended during the pendency of the present appeal. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI contended that the applicant does not have good 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43990 ) arguable case in his favour and he is not entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal as he has committed a serious offence and he has been proved guilty of committing a serious crime after a full-fledged trial. 4. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent/CBI and have also gone through the material available on record. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also after going through the entire evidence on record, which has been considered prima facie for the purpose of adjudicating the instant application, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant/appellant has made out a case for suspension of sentence imposed upon him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the Appellate Court liberally unless there are 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43990 ) exceptional circumstances. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under: “3. When a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of course if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of a limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when a motion for expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously the appellate court must bestow special concern in the matter of suspending the sentence. So as to make the appeal right, meaningful and effective. Of course appellate courts can impose similar conditions when bail is granted.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhupatji Sartajji Jabraji Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3320, has held as under:- “7. There is a fine distinction between a sentence imposed by the trial court for a fixed term and sentence life imprisonment. If a sentence is for a fixed term, ordinarily, the appellate court may exercise its discretion to suspend the operation of the same liberally unless there are any exceptional circumstances emerging from the record to decline. However, when it is a case of life imprisonment, the only legal test which the Court should apply is to ascertain whether there is anything palpable or apparent on the face of the record on the basis of which the court can come to the conclusion that the conviction is not sustainable in law and that the convict has very fair chances of succeeding in his appeal. For applying such test, it is also not 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43990 ) permissible for the court to undertake the exercise of reappreciating the evidence. The emphasis is on the word “palpable” and the expression “apparent on the face of the record”. 7. In the case on hand, the maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant/appellant is four years. The instant appeal pertains to the year 2025 and the same is not likely to be taken up for hearing in the near future and there is also nothing on record to suggest that the delay in deciding the appeal is attributable to the applicant/appellant. Moreover, the sentence of other co-accused namely Amar Singh Bodh has already been suspended by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, as such, the sentence of petitioner also deserves to be suspended. 8. Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai’s case (supra) and Bhupatji Sartajji Jabraji Thakor’s case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence. Accordingly, it is ordered that the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant/appellant, vide judgment of conviction dated 05.09.2025 and order of sentence dated 12.09.2025, passed by 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43990 ) learned Special Judge (C.B.I.), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., shall remain suspended, till final disposal of the instant appeal, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court and also depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, undertaking therein to appear in the Court as and when directed and in the event of the dismissal of the appeal, the applicant will surrender before the Court to undergo sentence, if any, imposed by the Court. 9. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the same has been given only for the purpose of deciding the present application. The application stands disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) December 17, 2025 Judge (raman) 6