Suspension of sentence and bail granted pending appeal where appellants completed eleven months of seven-year incarceration.

The petitioners were convicted by the Learned CJM, Sepahijala, on 04.08.2025 in PRC(WP) No. 94 of 2024 for offences under Sections 457 and 382 of the IPC.

They were sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000 each for both counts, to run concurrently.

The petitioners preferred a statutory appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2025) before the Sessions Judge, Sepahijala, along with an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence.

The Learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer for suspension on 30.01.2026.

Consequently, the petitioners approached the High Court of Tripura seeking suspension of sentence and bail pending the disposal of their appeal.

1. Whether the sentence imposed on the convicted petitioners ought to be suspended under Section 389(2) of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 430(2) of the BNSS) pending the final disposal of their criminal appeal.

Section 389(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), corresponding to Section 430(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which empowers an Appellate Court to suspend the execution of a sentence and grant bail to a convicted person pending an appeal.

Section 428 Cr.P.C. regarding the set-off of the period of detention already undergone.

The decision-making was guided by the principle that if there are sufficient materials to potentially succeed on appeal, continued incarceration during the pendency of the appeal may constitute unnecessary harassment.

The Court evaluated the petitioners' claim that the Trial Court overlooked material evidence that could lead to their acquittal upon appeal.

Justice Biswajit Palit noted that the petitioners had already been in custody for 11 months.

While the prosecution (State) argued that there was direct incriminating evidence against the appellants, the Court found that the Public Prosecutor failed to provide specific materials to justify the continued denial of bail during the appellate stage.

The Court reasoned that if the appellants were ultimately acquitted, the period of incarceration undergone during the appeal process would be without basis and result in harassment.

Balancing the nature of the conviction against the duration of custody already served and the pendency of the statutory appeal, the Court determined that suspension was warranted.

The Court directed the release of the petitioners on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Learned Sessions Judge, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court without permission until the appeal is disposed of.