JAMNALAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2025] 9 S.C.R. 98 · Decided: 06-08-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 98 : 2025 INSC 935
Jamnalal 
v. 
State of Rajasthan and Another
(Criminal Appeal No. 3396 of 2025)
06 August 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
In the instant appeal, the father of the prosecutrix challenges the 
order of the High Court. By the said order, the sentence imposed 
on respondent no.2 herein was suspended till the final disposal 
of the appeal. Whether the High Court considered the relevant 
factors for suspension u/s.389 CrPC.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.389 – Protection of 
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – s.3/4(2) – Penal 
Code, 1860 – s.376(3) – Respondent no.2 was found guilty 
for the offences punishable u/s.3/4(2) of POCSO Act as 
well as u/s.376(3) of IPC – Respondent no.2 was sentenced  
u/s.3/4(2) of POCSO Act and no sentence was imposed 
u/s.376(3) in view of s.42 of POCSO Act – Insofar as s.3/4(2) of 
POCSO Act was concerned, respondent no.2 was sentenced to 
undergo 20 years rigorous imprisonment – However, the High 
Court suspended the sentence of respondent no.2 and enlarged 
him on bail till the pendency of the appeal – Correctness:
Held: 1. The High Court has not adverted to any of the relevant 
factors for considering the case for suspension u/s.389 and keeping 
in mind the antecedents of the respondent no.2, this Court is of 
the opinion that High Court was not justified in suspending the 
sentence. [Para 12]
2. The reasoning of the High Court, falls far short of the parameters 
required u/s.389 of CrPC for enlargement of a convict, punished 
for heinous offence, on bail after suspending the sentence – The 
finding that no sexual assault was found, without considering the 
overall nature of the evidence of the case, is completely untenable – 
* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 
99
Jamnalal v. State of Rajasthan and Another
According to the evidence of the prosecutrix, respondent no.2, at 
gunpoint, closed her mouth and forcibly took her to a house and 
committed rape on her – All that the medical evidence said was 
that no conclusive opinion about the crime could be given since 
FSL Report was awaited – That does not mean that the ocular 
evidence could be ignored – As far as non-availability of FSL Report 
is concerned, the prosecution has explained the situation and the 
Trial Court has also found that the non-availability of the DNA 
Report did not adversely affect the case of the prosecution – The 
reasoning that despite the availability of washrooms in the house 
it was difficult to believe that the prosecutrix could go out for the 
toilet, is conjectural in nature – Therefore, the order of the High 
Court is set aside and respondent no.2 is directed to surrender 
before the Court of Special Judge (POCSO). [Paras 16,19]
Bail – Distinction between setting aside bail by the a higher 
Court and cancellation of bail:
Held: There is clear distinction in law between setting aside of 
the bail by a higher Court and cancellation of the bail – While 
cancellation of bail is due to some supervening circumstances like 
breach of bail condition, setting aside of the bail is concerned not 
with the breach of condition but with the justifiability and soundness 
of the order granting bail. [Para 13]
Case Law Cited
Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Another [2023] 
5 SCR 141 : (2023) 6 SCC 123; Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and 
Others (2002) 9 SCC 364 – relied on.
Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2014] 12 SCR 
453 : (2014) 16 SCC 508 – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Protection of Children from 
Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Sentence; Suspension of sentence; Bail; Section 389 of CrPC; 
Rape; Sexual assault; Medical evidence; Ocular evidence; FSL 
report; DNA report; Setting aside bail; Cancellation of bail.
100
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
3396 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.09.2024 of the High 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCRMSOSA(A) 
No. 852 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
K. L. Janjani, Kailash J. Kashyap.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Sansriti Pathak, A.A.G., Ms. Shagufa Khan, Aman Prasad, 
Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Namit Saxena.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1.	
Leave granted. 
2.	
We have heard Mr. K.L. Janjani, learned counsel for the appellant, 
Ms. Sansriti Pathak,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.