Appellate Court Must Examine Merits Of Conviction While Considering Bail; Cannot Merely Interpret S.430 BNSS As Directory: Uttarakhand HC

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that while considering an application for suspension of sentence and bail in a statutory criminal appeal, the Appellate Court is required to examine the merits of the conviction instead of merely interpreting whether Section 430(1) of the BNSS is directory or mandatory.

The Court observed that once the appeal against conviction had been admitted, the Appellate Court ought to have examined whether the conviction was bad or not, and that failure to do so reflected non-application of judicial mind.

Justice Rakesh Thapliyal was dealing with a criminal revision filed against an order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee rejecting an application seeking bail and suspension of sentence pending appeal.  

The revisionist had faced trial for offences under Sections 363 and 506 IPC arising out of a 2018 FIR. By judgment dated 28.02.2026, the trial court acquitted him of the offence under Section 506 IPC but convicted him under Section 363 IPC and sentenced him to seven years' simple imprisonment along with fine.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revisionist preferred a statutory criminal appeal before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee along with an application seeking bail and suspension of sentence. Though the appeal was admitted on 06.03.2026, the application for suspension of sentence was rejected on the same day.  

Upon perusal of the impugned order, the High Court observed that instead of examining the merits of the conviction, the Appellate Court interpreted the scope of Section 430(1) of the BNSS and concluded that suspension of conviction was not mandatory as the provision is directory in nature.

“It appears that the 1st Addl. Session Judge, Roorkee without applying its judicial mind passed the order impugned, though appeal preferred by the revisionist (convict) is an

statutory appeal which was admitted, and instead of going with the merit of the case

whether conviction is bad or not, the learned Judge, interpreted the scope of Section 430(1)of BNSS 2023”, the Court said.

“If the convict preferred an appeal against his conviction then the Appellate Court should examine whether conviction is bad or not which is completely missing in the order impugned”, the Court further iterated.

With regards to the bail application, the revisionist submitted that he had remained on bail during trial and had never misused the liberty granted to him. It was further argued that after conviction he surrendered and thereafter moved the bail application.

It was also contended that the conviction was bad as the age of the victim had not been determined in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Juvenile Justice Act, and further that the victim herself had not supported the prosecution case.

The State did not dispute the above submissions regarding lack of misuse of bail.

Hence, taking into consideration that the revisionist had remained on bail during trial without misuse of liberty, that the maximum sentence awarded was seven years' simple imprisonment, and that the statutory criminal appeal had already been admitted, the High Court held that the revisionist deserved to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the appeal.

Accordingly, the criminal revision was allowed, the order rejecting suspension of sentence was quashed, and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court were suspended during pendency of the appeal.  

Case No: CRLR No. 248 of 2026 With Bail Appl. No. 1 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order