Article 21 Limits on “Deposit of Fine” Conditions While Suspending Sentence: Poverty Cannot Convert a Suspension Order into Continued Custody

Case: RAJESH KUSHWAH S/O SHRI RAMSHAKAL KUSHWAH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)
Date: 24-01-2026
Coram: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Nature: S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application No.2204/2024 in S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No.3151/2024

1. Introduction

The order arises from a post-conviction stage: the appellant, Rajesh Kushwah, convicted under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 10 years (having undergone 7 years and 11 months), had earlier obtained an order dated 07.10.2025 suspending his sentence pending appeal. That suspension was made conditional upon, inter alia, depositing a fine amount of Rs. 1 lakh.

Despite the suspension order, the appellant remained in jail because he could not deposit the fine due to poverty. The present application sought relaxation/recall of that condition. The hearing also occurred against the backdrop of an ongoing lawyers’ strike in protest against the High Court Full Court decision to designate two working Saturdays per month, raising broader concerns about access to justice and personal liberty matters being stalled.

Key issues

  • Whether a condition requiring deposit of fine, when impossible for an indigent appellant to comply with, can be recalled as violating Article 21.
  • How courts should approach work abstention/strike by lawyers when personal liberty matters are pending.

2. Summary of the Judgment

  • The Court noted the strike call and reiterated that abstention from court work is impermissible, particularly when personal liberty is involved.
  • On merits, the Court held that while appellate courts may impose conditions when suspending sentence (including fine), such conditions cannot be framed so as to be impossible for the appellant to comply with, because that would effectively defeat the right of appeal and violate Article 21.
  • Given the appellant’s asserted poverty and the fact that he remained incarcerated despite a suspension order, the Court recalled the condition requiring deposit of Rs. 1 lakh and directed the Trial Court to release him forthwith on the remaining conditions.
  • The Court expressly stated the order should not be treated as a precedent, being based on peculiar facts.
  • It directed that a copy be sent to the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Rajasthan.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

(a) Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India & Another (2003 (2) SCC 45)

The Court invoked this authority to underscore that lawyers have no right to strike or boycott court work, even as a token strike, and that such abstention holds litigants “at ransom.” In the present order, the precedent functions less as a ratio for the bail issue and more as a constitutional and institutional reminder: the justice delivery system cannot be paralysed, especially where the matter affects personal liberty of incarcerated persons.

The Court connected the strike issue to Article 21 (right to speedy justice), emphasizing that boycotts delay adjudication and thereby directly burden litigants, including prisoners seeking relief.

(b) Lakhwinder Singh (supra)

The earlier suspension order dated 07.10.2025 referenced “Lakhwinder Singh (supra)” as the proposition governing suspension of sentence. The present order does not reproduce the ratio of that decision, but its mention signals that the High Court considered itself guided by Supreme Court principles on when sentence can be suspended pending appeal (typically considering period undergone, arguable points, and overall circumstances).

(c) Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Sirpal (Criminal Appeal No.4277/2024)

This is the central doctrinal anchor for recalling the fine-deposit condition. The High Court extracted paragraph 8, which articulates a structured approach:

Core principle applied: Conditions may be imposed while suspending sentence (including fine), but they must not be such that compliance is impossible; otherwise, the condition defeats the right of appeal and may violate Article 21.

The Supreme Court’s illustrative distinction—more readiness to insist on deposit conditions in Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act matters, and a different approach in IPC and cognate legislation—was used to reinforce that conditional suspension must be tailored to offence-type and individual circumstances.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(i) Strike/abstention context: Article 21 and institutional functioning

The Court treated the strike as constitutionally consequential because it can stall hearings and prolong detention. It emphasized:

  • Personal liberty matters cannot await resolution of bar grievances.
  • Even the right to protest (linked to Article 19(1)(b)) is not absolute and must be balanced against others’ rights, including Article 21.
  • The cause-list note that counsel presence on working Saturdays “shall not be mandatory” further weakened the justification for abstention.

This aspect of the order situates court functioning and access to justice as not merely administrative, but as part of constitutional guarantees—particularly when liberty is at stake.

(ii) Conditional suspension of sentence: when a condition becomes unconstitutional in effect

The Court’s key move is to treat the fine-deposit condition not as a neutral procedural requirement, but as potentially liberty-negating when the appellant is indigent. The reasoning runs:

  • The appellate court can impose conditions while suspending sentence, including conditions relating to fine.
  • However, if the appellant cannot comply due to poverty, the condition can operate as a de facto denial of suspension.
  • That turns the right to appeal/suspension into a privilege for those who can pay—thereby infringing Article 21.
  • On facts, the appellant remained in custody “in spite of his release order,” which the Court viewed as an acute liberty harm requiring immediate correction.

(iii) Relief crafted: recall of one condition, preservation of remaining safeguards

Rather than altering the entire suspension framework, the Court adopted a proportionate remedy:

  • Recalled only the fine-deposit condition.
  • Maintained the other bail/suspension conditions (personal bond, sureties, appearance obligations, address change intimation, etc.).
  • Directed release “forthwith,” reflecting urgency tied to Article 21.

3.3 Impact

Important limitation: The Court stated the order “should not be treated as a precedent,” citing peculiar facts. Formally, that reduces its precedential value; practically, it may still be relied on as persuasive reasoning in similar fact situations.

Even with the non-precedent caveat, the order has likely practical influence in three ways:

  • Conditional suspension orders: Courts may more carefully assess an appellant’s capacity to comply with monetary conditions, especially where continued custody would result solely from inability to pay.
  • Article 21 framing: The decision reinforces the approach that “impossible” conditions can be constitutionally problematic because they convert appellate remedies into illusory relief.
  • Bar strikes and liberty matters: By reiterating Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India & Another in a liberty-centric setting, the order strengthens the normative expectation that courts will proceed in urgent matters notwithstanding abstentions and may escalate concerns to regulatory bodies (as done here by sending the order to Bar Councils).

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Suspension of sentence (pending appeal): A temporary pause on executing the sentence while the appeal is being decided. It does not erase the conviction; it only prevents the appellant from continuing to serve the sentence during the appeal (subject to conditions).
  • Condition to deposit fine: Courts sometimes require payment/deposit of a fine amount as a condition for suspending the “fine sentence” or as part of suspension/bail terms. The key legal constraint is that such a condition cannot be set at a level that is impossible for the appellant, because then the “suspension” becomes meaningless.
  • Article 21 (life and personal liberty): Interpreted broadly to include protection against unjust or arbitrary deprivation of liberty and the right to speedy justice. Here, continued incarceration solely because of inability to pay a fine was treated as an Article 21 concern.
  • Right to protest vs. court boycott: Peaceful protest is protected (e.g., Article 19(1)(b)), but boycotting courts can infringe litigants’ rights and undermine justice administration; hence courts consistently disallow strikes by lawyers.

5. Conclusion

The Rajasthan High Court’s order delivers a focused constitutional message: monetary conditions attached to suspension of sentence cannot be allowed to operate as an “impossible condition” that nullifies relief and prolongs custody. Anchored in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Sirpal, the Court treated the appellant’s inability to deposit the fine as a liberty issue under Article 21, recalled the fine-deposit condition, and ordered immediate release on remaining safeguards.

Separately, by invoking Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India & Another in the context of a strike, the Court reaffirmed that the justice system—especially in matters of personal liberty—cannot be held hostage to work abstentions, and it signalled institutional seriousness by forwarding the order to the Bar Councils.