Prolonged incarceration pending appeal warrants bail where the appeal is unlikely to be heard soon.

The petitioner was convicted in Adityapur P.S. Case No. 10 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 38 of 2016, for offences under Sections 467/34 and 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine under Section 467/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine under Section 468/34 IPC, with both sentences directed to run concurrently

The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2025 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1 March 2025. During the pendency of the appeal, he applied for suspension of sentence and bail before the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella (Kharsawan), but the application was rejected by order dated 11 April 2025

He approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the rejection order and release on bail. He submitted that he had remained in custody for four months and two days during trial and had been continuously in custody since his conviction on 28 February 2025. He further contended that the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future and that there were substantial grounds challenging his conviction under Section 467 IPC

The State opposed the petition

Whether the Appellate Court acted illegally in rejecting the petitioner’s application for bail or suspension of sentence during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2025?

Whether, considering the petitioner’s prolonged custody and the absence of an immediate prospect of hearing the appeal, the High Court should quash the rejection order and direct his release on bail pending disposal of the appeal?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to examine the legality of the impugned order and prevent miscarriage of justice

The conviction arose under Sections 467/34 and 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning forgery-related offences committed in furtherance of common intention

The Court applied the principle that, during the pendency of a criminal appeal, continued incarceration must be assessed in light of the period already undergone, the likely time required for disposal of the appeal, and the absence of a reasonable prospect of early hearing; prolonged custody in such circumstances may justify suspension of sentence and release on bail

The Court found that the petitioner had remained in custody for over one and a half years, including four months and two days during trial, and had been continuously incarcerated since 28 February 2025

The appeal had remained pending before the Appellate Court for more than a year without being heard, and there was no likelihood of its early disposal

The Court also noted the petitioner’s arguable contention that the essential factual basis for an offence under Section 467 IPC—relating to forgery of specified categories of valuable instruments or documents—was absent

In these circumstances, the Appellate Court’s refusal to grant bail during the pendency of the appeal was held to be illegal, warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail until disposal of the appeal upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella (Kharsawan)

The petitioner was further directed to cooperate with the hearing of the criminal appeal