Introduction
Suspension of sentence during the pendency of a criminal appeal has always involved a careful judicial balance between enforcing a lawfully imposed sentence and protecting the fundamental right to personal liberty. Under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — which replaces Section 389 CrPC — this balance gains renewed relevance. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in CRA No. 249 of 2023, examined this question in the context of a woman convict serving a ten-year sentence under Section 307 IPC, who had already undergone more than half her sentence by the time her application came up for hearing.
Background of the Case
In Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2023 pending before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, the appellant — Sangeeta Shukla — challenged the judgment dated 30 November 2022 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, in ST No. 145/2020.
The trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to murder) and sentenced her to ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
The Application Before the High Court
During the pendency of the criminal appeal, the appellant filed I.A. No. 23028/2025 — her second application — under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail.
Her earlier application had been dismissed as withdrawn on 09 July 2025.
Key Submissions Made on Behalf of the Appellant
The following grounds were placed before the Court in support of the bail application:
1. Substantial Sentence Already Served As per the custody report dated 03 November 2025, the appellant had already served 5 years, 5 months, and 28 days of actual sentence. With remission, the period stood at 6 years, 4 months, and 27 days — meaning she had undergone more than half of the ten-year sentence awarded by the trial court.
2. Gender and Age of the Appellant The appellant is a woman, aged approximately 35 years at the time of hearing. Courts across India, including the Supreme Court, have consistently recognized the personal liberty of women undertrial and convict-appellants as a relevant consideration.
3. Merits of the Case It was submitted that the prosecution evidence was riddled with material contradictions, omissions, and variations in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, along with inherent infirmities in the prosecution case overall. The appellant was stated to have a good case on merits in the main appeal.
4. Clean Antecedents The appellant had no prior criminal record, which the Court duly noted.
5. Delay in Final Disposal Given that the final hearing of the appeal would take considerable time, continued incarceration pending appeal was argued to be disproportionate.
State’s Opposition
The learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh vehemently opposed the application and prayed for its rejection, urging the Court not to interfere with the conviction and sentence.
The Court’s Decision
After hearing both sides and perusing the record, Hon’ble Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani allowed I.A. No. 23028/2025, making it clear that the order was passed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the main appeal.
The Court directed as follows:
- The remaining jail sentence of the appellant shall stand suspended
- The appellant shall be released on bail subject to:
- Depositing the entire fine amount, if not already deposited
- Furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court
- The appellant is directed to mark her appearance before the trial court on 20 April 2026, and on subsequent dates as fixed, until final disposal of the criminal appeal
- The main appeal is listed for final hearing in due course
Legal Significance of This Order
This order is a useful reference point for practitioners dealing with suspension of sentence applications in criminal appeals. Several important legal principles emerge from this ruling:
① Section 430 BNSS / Section 389 CrPC — The Governing Provision Section 430 of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — which corresponds to Section 389(1) of the CrPC — empowers the appellate court to suspend the execution of a sentence during the pendency of an appeal and release the appellant on bail. This order reflects the continued application of these principles under the new criminal procedural framework.
② Half-Sentence as a Relevant Benchmark While there is no absolute rule, the fact that an appellant has served more than half of the sentence has consistently been treated by Indian courts as a strong factor favouring suspension of sentence pending appeal. This order reaffirms that principle.
③ Gender as a Relevant Consideration Indian courts have repeatedly acknowledged that the gender of the appellant is a relevant, though not overriding, consideration in bail and sentence suspension matters, particularly when the appellant is a woman with no criminal history.
④ Merits Without Finality The High Court’s explicit statement that the order is passed “without expressing any opinion on the merits” is a standard and important caveat — it preserves the integrity of the pending appeal while giving effect to the principles of personal liberty.
⑤ Conditions Ensure Accountability The imposition of personal bond, surety requirement, and mandatory appearance before the trial court reflects the Court’s balanced approach — upholding liberty while ensuring the appellant remains accountable to the judicial process.
Relevant Legal Provisions
| Provision | Subject |
|---|---|
| Section 307, IPC | Attempt to Murder |
| Section 430, BNSS 2023 | Suspension of Sentence by Appellate Court |
| Section 389(1), CrPC | Suspension of Sentence Pending Appeal (predecessor provision) |
Conclusion
The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order in Sangeeta Shukla vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (CRA 249/2023) is a concise but significant illustration of how appellate courts apply the principles of personal liberty, proportionality, and procedural fairness while dealing with sentence suspension applications under the new BNSS framework. It underscores that where a convict-appellant has served a substantial portion of the sentence, has no criminal antecedents, and raises arguable points on merit, the appellate court is well within its jurisdiction to grant interim relief in the form of bail.
