Fixed-term sentences should be suspended pending appeal absent compelling public-interest grounds to refuse.

Salman appealed against his conviction dated 19 August 2026 and sentence order dated 1 September 2026 in a case arising from FIR No. 504/2020, registered under Sections 392/397/411/34 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that three persons robbed the complainant of a mobile phone on 9 December 2020; the phone was recovered from Salman.

The trial court found Section 394 IPC not proved for want of injury or an MLC, but relied on the recovery to connect Salman with the robbery.

Salman sought suspension of sentence and regular bail pending appeal.

He had undergone 11 months and 4 days in custody, including pre-trial custody; his conduct in jail was satisfactory, and he had remained on bail during most of the trial without misusing that liberty.

He argued that the appeal raised issues concerning the complainant’s identification and the disparity between his sentence and that of a co-accused, and that the appeal would take considerable time to be heard.

1. Whether Salman’s fixed-term sentence should be suspended and he released on bail pending appeal, having regard to the custody already served, the anticipated delay in hearing the appeal, and the circumstances on record.

2. If suspension and release were warranted, what conditions should govern his release.

Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 528, governed the application; the Court treated Section 430 as pari materia with Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Under Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421, suspension of a fixed-term sentence pending appeal should generally be considered liberally, absent exceptional circumstances; where an appeal cannot be heard expeditiously, suspension may be necessary to preserve the meaningful exercise of the right of appeal, subject to appropriate conditions.

The Court also relied on Aasif @ Pasha v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 944, which reiterated that suspension of a fixed-term sentence should be declined only where compelling circumstances indicate that release would not be in the public interest.

The Court considered that Salman had already served about one-fifth of his fixed-term sentence and that the appeal was unlikely to be heard before he served a substantial part of it.

It also took account of his satisfactory jail conduct and his compliance with bail during the trial, alongside the arguable appellate points identified by counsel.

Applying the principles in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Aasif @ Pasha, the Court found no compelling circumstance on the record requiring continued incarceration pending appeal and ordered suspension of the substantive sentences, subject to conditions designed to secure Salman’s attendance and prevent contact with the victim.

It directed his release on a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety for the like amount, subject to conditions including restrictions on leaving Delhi, address and contact-information requirements, non-contact with the victim and the victim’s family, abstention from criminal activity, and monthly reporting to the concerned SHO.

The Court clarified that its order expressed no opinion on the merits of the appeal and that breach of a condition could give the State grounds to seek cancellation.