Kuldeep Singh and Others Vs State of Hp

1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21858 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr. MP No. 2454 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal No. 291 of 2025 Reserved on: 04.07.2025 Decided on: 09.07.2025

______________________ Kuldeep Singh & others	________ Versus	_______________________ …..Appellants/applicants.
State of Himachal Pradesh	…	…Respondent/non-applicant.
_______________________ Coram	________	______________________

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶6

_______________________ For the applicants:	______________________________ Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate.
For the non-applicant/State:	Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ankush Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.
Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

¶7

This order shall dispose of application, filed by the applicants/appellants, under Section 430 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, seeking suspension of sentence awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Case Registration No. 54 of 2018, vide judgment of conviction, dated 05.06.2025, and order of sentence, dated 06.06.2025, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code

¶8

(for short ‘IPC’).

¶9

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21858 )

¶11

The learned Counsel for the appellants/applicants

¶12

contended that the appeal is likely to succeed in all probabilities as the appellants/applicants have got a very good arguable case on merits and have a fair chance of acquittal. He further contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of the alleged offence, which are completely lacking in the instant case. He also submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case, in as much as the suicide note cannot be relied upon to base the conviction of the appellants, as the same is doubtful. He also contended that the appellants/applicants are behind the bars and the appeal is not likely to be decided in near future, therefore, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of

¶13

the case, the sentence imposed upon the appellants/applications by the learned Trial Court be suspended in the interest of justice and fair play.

¶14

Per contra the learned Senior Additional Advocate General contended that the appellants/applicants are not entitled for suspension of sentence, as the learned Trial Court found them guilty and convicted them in a serious crime. It is further contended that after the judgment of conviction, there is no presumption of innocence in favour of the appellants/applicants and the instant application, being devoid of merits, deserves to be

¶15

3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21858 )

¶16

dismissed.

¶17

I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicants/appellants as well as learned Senior Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the material available on record.

¶18

The perusal of the record reveals that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., vide judgment of conviction, dated 05.06.2025, and order of sentence, dated 06.06.2025, convicted the applicants/appellants, namely, Kuldeep Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Surinder Kaur under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC. The applicants/appellants were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. They were also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that on 09.08.2017 and

¶20

4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21858 )

¶21

period preceding thereto, in furtherance of their common intention,

¶22

the appellants/applicants being the husband and in-laws of deceased Pravinder Kaur alias Pummi subjected her to cruelty and harassed her in connection with demand of dowry and thus abetted the commission of suicide by her by jumping in BBMB Lake within seven years of her marriage with accused Kuldeep Singh.

¶23

In Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others v. State of Gujarat, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 421 , it has been held that when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:

¶24

"3. When a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of course, if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of a limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when a motion for expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in such cases.”

¶25

In Suresh Kumar and others v. State (NCT of Delhi)

¶26

dated 29.09.2000 reported in (2001) 10 SCC 338, wherein in

¶27

para No.5 and 6 Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as under:

¶28

"5. This Court has stated in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat:1999 SCC (cri) 553(SCC p. 422, para 3)

¶29

5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21858 )

¶30

3. When a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances.

¶31

6. No exceptional circumstance has been highlighted by the learned Single Judge for deviating from the aforesaid course suggested by this Court. We, therefore, allow this appeal and order the suspension of the sentence of imprisonment passed on the appellants during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. They shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court."

¶32

In Atul v. State of M.P., (2024) 3 SCC 663, it has been

¶33

held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in a fixed-term sentence,

¶34

where the appeal was not likely to be heard before completing the entire sentence, normally suspension of the sentence should be granted. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as

¶35

under:

¶36

"2. Out of a fixed term sentence of five years, the appellant-accused has already undergone half of the sentence. The appeal against conviction of the year 2022 is not likely to reach before he completes the entire sentence. Hence, a case is made out for a grant of suspension of sentence pending the appeal and grant of bail. For that purpose, the appellant shall be produced before the trial court within a period of one week from today.

¶37

3. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶38

4. Before parting with the order, we must note here that notwithstanding several decisions of this Court holding that when there is a fixed term sentence and especially when the appeal is not likely to be heard before completing an entire period of sentence, normally suspension of sentence and bail should be granted, we find that in several deserving cases, bail is being denied. Such cases should never be required to be brought before this Court.”

¶39

This court has applied the test of the principles

¶40

enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments discussed hereinabove, to the facts and circumstances of the present case, while keeping all aspects of the matter including the nature of the offence and its possible social

¶41

6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21858 )

¶42

implications in mind, vis-a-vis the liberty of the appellants/applicants. In the background of the evidence available on record, the present case cannot be said to be one of the exceptional cases in which prayer for suspension of sentence should be refused. Appellant No. 2 Ranjeet Singh is the father-inlaw and appellant No. 3 Surinder Kaur is the mother-in-law of the deceased and both of them are of old age. Moreover the appeal pertains to the year 2025 and is not likely to be taken up for hearing in near future.

¶43

Hence, after considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, this Court finds that the appellants have made out a case for bail and suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, while refraining to make any comment on merits of the case, the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicants/appellants by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, in Case Registration No. 54 of2018, vide judgment of conviction, dated 05.06.2025, and order of sentence, dated 06.06.2025, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the appeal, however, subject to the applicants’ furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court and also subject to deposit of fine amount. On

¶44

7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21858 )

¶45

furnishing the requisite bail bonds, they be released forthwith, however, with the undertaking to appear before this Court as and when directed and in the event of the dismissal of the appeal, the

¶46

applicants/appellants will surrender before the Court.

¶47

Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this

¶48

order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the same has been given only for the purpose of deciding the present application. The application stands disposed of.

¶49

( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge

¶50

^th July, 2025 (virender)

¶51

VIRENDER BAHADUR Digitally signed by VIRENDER BAHADURDN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=3c5f9e29e91dda973d928ffd06d59832d2dd97b9e2898117bfa738990a0ea7ba, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=fed3018c26866cd3d598cb3749b3fb29d4abef4b84983689d027cb645c9bb134, CN=VIRENDER BAHADURReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2025.07.09 15:16:59+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0

Kuldeep Singh and Others v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh and Others v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Sharma Vs State of Hp

Sahil Guleria Vs State of Hp

Incharge Railway Protection Force Vs Dheeraj Kumar and Others

Shiv Kumar Vs State of Hp

Praveen Kumar Vs State of Hp

Atul Gupta Vs State of Hp