Suspension of sentence, fine can't be with condition to defeat right of appeal: SC

The Supreme Court has on August 29, 2025 said the appellate court while suspending the sentence, including the fine, cannot impose a condition which is difficult to comply with, defeating the right of appeal or making such an entitlement of the convict as illusory.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta pointed out Section 430 of the BNSS empowers the appellate court to suspend the execution of the sentence pending appeal. 

"A sentence may comprise imprisonment and fine. Therefore, the power to suspend extends to the fine component as well. While conditions may be imposed to secure the presence of the appellant and the progress of the appeal, we believe that they cannot be such as to render the order of suspension illusory for want of means,'' the bench said.  

The court emphasised a condition which is impossible to comply with, defeats the right of appeal.

Dealing with an appeal filed by Sunny alias Sanjeev, the court modified the order by the Himachal Pradesh High Court of April 22, 2025, deleting the requirement that the appellant deposit the fine amount of Rs 1,00,000 as a pre-condition for his release.

By the impugned order, the High Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed upon the appellant by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of December 30, 2024 passed by the Special Judge, Chamba for the offences punishable under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, but directed that such suspension would operate subject, inter alia, to the appellant furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with one surety in the like amount and depositing the fine amount of Rs 1,00,000.

The appellant challenged only the stipulation requiring deposit of the fine amount on the ground that he was a man of limited means and had no independent income.   

The Special Judge sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs 1,00,000, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one year.

While the appeal was pending before the High Court, the appellant moved an application under Section 430 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.  

The High Court noted prior acquaintance and voluntary company of the prosecutrix with the appellant, and that the trial court had acquitted the appellant under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. It also recorded that the parties intended to marry and left home together on November 10, 2019. On age, the High Court found the documentary basis inconclusive, the certificates being drawn from the “pariwar” register, and the ossification test assessing 17–21 years with the possibility of the prosecutrix being 18 years or more. 

In these circumstances, by the impugned order, the High Court directed that the substantive sentence would remain suspended till disposal of the appeal, subject to the appellant furnishing a personal bond of Ra 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and depositing the fine amount of Rs 1,00,000, if not already deposited.   

Upon compliance with these conditions, the appellant was to be released forthwith. The High Court further required the appellant to undertake to appear as and when directed and to surrender in the event of dismissal of the appeal.  

In the present case, the court noted, the High Court recorded that the appeal is not likely to be decided in the near future and that, as on April 22, 2025, the appellant had undergone custody of two years, seven months and two days. 

The appellant stated that he is a person of limited means, has no independent income, and is unable to deposit Rs 1,00,000. 

"In these circumstances, insisting on an upfront deposit of Rs 1,00,000 as a condition for release would, in his case, defeat the suspension that the High Court otherwise granted. We are of the view that the legitimate concerns of justice can be secured by a personal bond, one surety, and appropriate behavioural conditions,'' the bench said.

Allowing the appeal, the court directed the fine component would remain in abeyance and would abide the result of the appeal. 

The other conditions imposed by the High Court would continue to operate, including the undertakings to appear as and when directed and to surrender in the event of dismissal of the appeal, the court said. 

It ordered that the appellant would not leave India without prior permission of the appellate court and would keep the trial court informed of his address and mobile number.

Case Title: Sunny @ Sanjeev v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Judgment Date: August 29, 2025

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta