Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand has recalled the condition requiring an NDPS convict to deposit the trial court fine as a precondition for release, after the applicant remained in custody despite an earlier order suspending his sentence and granting bail. The Court noted that the applicant, sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment and having spent nearly eight years in jail, could not arrange the fine amount due to poverty. Holding that financial incapacity should not obstruct the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, it directed the trial court to release him forthwith on the remaining bail conditions.

The matter arose from an interim application filed by a convicted accused seeking recall of a condition imposed while suspending his sentence during the pendency of a criminal appeal. The accused had been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, of which he had already undergone nearly eight years of incarceration.

Also Read: Confession Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court

By an earlier order, the High Court had suspended the sentence subject to conditions, including execution of a personal bond, furnishing of sureties, and deposit of the fine amount imposed by the trial court. Despite the suspension of sentence, the accused continued to remain in custody as he was unable to deposit the fine amount due to his financial condition.

The interim application placed on record that the continued incarceration was solely on account of non-deposit of the fine and not due to violation of any other condition. The State did not dispute that the accused had already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence. The dispute before the Court was limited to whether the condition relating to deposit of fine could be recalled in the facts of the case, considering the accused’s inability to comply with it and the resulting impact on his personal liberty.

Turning to the facts of the case, the Court recorded that “the personal life and liberty of the applicant is at stake, as he is languishing in Jail inspite of his release order.” It noted that the applicant had already served “7 years and 11 months” of the ten-year sentence imposed upon conviction.

On the issue of conditional suspension of sentence, the Court stated that “while suspending the sentence of the accused-appellant, the Appellate Court can impose certain conditions, but if any condition to deposit of amount is imposed… and it is found that it is not possible for the accused to comply with the same, such condition may amount to defeat his right to appeal.”

Relying on precedent, the Court recorded that “if a condition of the deposit of an amount is imposed while suspending the sentence of fine, the same should not be such that it is impossible for the appellant to comply with it.” It further observed that “poverty and penalty should not hinder an accused persons’ right of life and personal liberty.”

The Court concluded that “Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, poverty and penalty should not hinder an accused persons' right of life and personal liberty, who has been released from jail, as the Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the life and liberty. If the applicant, in the present case, is not in a position to arrange the fine amount and has remained in custody inspite of his release order passed by this Court vide order dated 07.10.2025, it clearly amounts to violation of his personal right of life and liberty.”

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Stale Pension Plea, Pulls Up State For Missing Service Records And Orders Enquiry

The Court directed that “the condition imposed by this Court qua deposition of fine amount of Rs.1 Lakh stands recalled. The Trial Court is directed to release the applicant forthwith, in terms of the other conditions imposed by this Court.”

“The interim application No.1/2026 stands allowed. This order should not be treated as a precedent, in other cases, as it has been passed taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.”

Case Title: Rajesh Kushwah v. State of Rajasthan
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application arising out of Criminal Appeal No.2204/2024
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand