The Allahabad High Court has held that where the parties are ready to argue the criminal appeal or the criminal revision on merits, the application for suspension of sentence may not be given preference over final disposal of the criminal appeal or the criminal revision.

"As per our considered opinion, endeavour of the Court should be to decide the criminal appeal at the earliest if parties are ready to argue the appeal on merits", a Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed.

The Court thus rejected an application for suspension of sentence filed by one Pawan Kumar Pandey, who has challenged his conviction in a 1990 criminal case.

The Court was also hearing a connected criminal revision filed by the victim's son seeking enhancement of the appellant's 7-year sentence to life imprisonment.

The Bench remarked thus:

"The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently observed that the application for suspension of sentence should be disposed of if in any case the appeal could not be heard finally for any cogent reasons".

Case background

The appellant (Pandey) was convicted by the trial court in January 2025 under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 and 427 of the IPC and sentenced to a maximum of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment.

He challenged the conviction before the High Court and simultaneously sought suspension of his sentence under Section 389 CrPC pending disposal of the appeal.

The son of the injured witness also filed a criminal revision before the High Court seeking enhancement of the sentence from seven years' imprisonment to life imprisonment. Since both proceedings arose from the same judgment, they were heard together.

The High Court noted that on February 4, 2026, the counsels for the parties had concluded their arguments on the bail application and, on their request that they were willing to address the Court on the merits of the appeal and the revision, one week's time was given.

Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on multiple occasions.

However, when the case was finally taken up again in July 2026, the counsel for the appellant-accused stated that he had no instructions to argue the appeal on the merits and instead requested the Court to decide only the application for suspension of sentence.

The Counsels appearing for the State and the victim opposed this and submitted that once the parties had already agreed to argue the appeal and revision on merits, the appellant could not insist on having only the suspension application decided while postponing the final adjudication of the appeal.

They also relied on recent Supreme Court decisions to argue that suspension of sentence after conviction stands on a different footing from pre-trial bail and that criminal antecedents remain relevant while considering such relief.

High Court's observations

Accepting the objection of the counsels for the State and the victim and refusing to pass an order suspending the sentences, the bench observed thus:

"The material available on record and considering the fact that on 04.02.2026, learned counsels for the parties were ready to argue the appeal on merits, for that a week's time was prayed but learned counsel for the appellant instead of arguing the appeal on merits insisted that the bail application may be decided as he has specific instructions from his client not to argue the appeal on merits but to press the bail application, we are not inclined to pass an order suspending the sentence of the appellant".

The bench added that when the counsels for the parties were ready to argue the appeal on merits and even the counsel for the appellant had also shown his willingness for the same, then such hearing of the appeal and the criminal revision could not be postponed on the choice of the appellant.

The Bench further observed that it could not permit the appellant to adopt delaying tactics in the disposal of the criminal appeal or the connected criminal revision.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the conviction or the connected revision seeking enhancement of sentence, the Court rejected the application for suspension of sentence and fixed August 19, 2026, for final hearing of both matters.

Counsel for Appellant(s): Brij Mohan Sahai, Alok Verma, Atul Krishna, Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, Prajjwal Harsh, Praveen Kumar Yadav, Vivek Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for Respondent(s): Additional Advocate General of U.P VK Shahi, assisted by AGA-I Anurag Verma; Akanksha Gupta, Anurag Singh, Devansh Vikram Singh, Gaurav Mehrotra,

Advocate Nadeem Murtaza appeared for the victim

Case Title - Pawan Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 481

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 481

Click Here To Read/Download Order