When a conviction has been affirmed once in appeal, the revisional court is the last ordinary forum — and the question of interim liberty pending revision becomes urgent. On 17 September 2026, Justice Ashok Kumar Jain of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in Magan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1362 of 2026, suspended the sentences of convicts in a rioting and hurt case and released them on bail, persuaded in substantial part by a ground the courts below had never answered: why probation was not considered for first-time offenders facing a three-year maximum term.
The case below
Five accused were convicted for rioting and causing injuries under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 341/149 and 325/149 IPC, the operative sentence being three years under Section 325/149. The appellate court affirmed. In revision before the High Court, the petitioners — in custody since 18 August 2026 — sought suspension of sentence and bail pending the revision's disposal.
The argument that worked
Beyond the usual grounds, counsel pressed a structural defect: the petitioners had no prior criminal record, yet neither the trial court nor the appellate court had considered releasing them on probation under Section 360 CrPC or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, or recorded any reason for not doing so. That omission did two things at once. It raised a fairly arguable question for the revision itself — sentencing courts are expected to apply their mind to probation for eligible first-time offenders — and it strengthened the case for interim liberty, since the ultimate outcome might not be imprisonment at all.
The court's order
Justice Jain found it "a fit case wherein appellants can be enlarged on bail," suspending the sentences pending disposal of the revision on personal bonds of ₹50,000 with two sureties of ₹25,000 each, subject to conditions including non-involvement in criminal activity and appearance when required.
Suspension pending revision: the working factors
| Factor | How it operated here |
|---|---|
| Length of sentence | Three years — a short-term sentence at risk of being substantially served before the revision could be decided, rendering success illusory. |
| Nature of offence | Rioting and grievous hurt by rash group violence — serious, but not in the categories where suspension is approached with special caution. |
| Antecedents | No prior record — which also opened the probation argument. |
| Arguable ground | Unconsidered probation plea — an error of law apparent from the record, the natural territory of revisional jurisdiction. |
The practice point
For counsel handling convictions in short-sentence cases, this decision is a reminder to build the probation record early. At the trial stage, place the offender's age, antecedents and circumstances on record and invite the court to consider Section 401 BNSS (formerly Section 360 CrPC) and the Probation of Offenders Act expressly; a refusal must then be reasoned, and an unreasoned silence becomes a ground that pays twice — once on the merits of the appeal or revision, and once at the suspension stage. The same logic applies with full force in Delhi's district courts and before the High Court of Delhi in revisions under Section 442 BNSS.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a sentence be suspended during a criminal revision?
Yes. The revisional court has the power to suspend the sentence and release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the revision, on the same broad logic as suspension pending appeal — now reflected in Sections 430 and 442 of the BNSS (formerly Sections 389 and 397–401 CrPC). Courts weigh the length of the sentence, the nature of the offence, custody undergone and the prospects of the revision.
What made this a fit case for suspension?
Three features: the convictions were under Section 325/149 IPC with a maximum sentence of three years — a short-term sentence that could be substantially served before the revision is heard; the petitioners had no prior criminal record; and the courts below had not recorded reasons for denying probation under Section 360 CrPC or the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which is itself an arguable legal error.
Is a court obliged to consider probation for eligible offenders?
Where the offender and offence fall within Section 360 CrPC (now Section 401 BNSS) or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, courts are expected to apply their mind to probation and record reasons for refusing it. An unexplained failure to do so is a recognised ground of challenge in appeal or revision, particularly for first-time offenders convicted of offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment.
What conditions were imposed on release?
Personal bonds of ₹50,000 each with two sureties of ₹25,000, non-involvement in criminal activity and appearance before the court as required. Breach can lead to cancellation of the bail and re-arrest.