Uttaranchal High Court: In an application filed in criminal appeal by a vaccinologist seeking stay/suspension of the judgment and order of conviction in an abetment to suicide case passed by the Sessions Judge, a Single-Judge Bench of Ravindra Maithani, J., considering the appellant’s crucial involvement in vaccine research and development, which is of critical importance to public health and national interest, suspended the order of conviction and the execution of sentence during the pendency of the appeal.
Background
The appellant is a scientist with a PhD in Biotechnology from IIT Kharagpur, and for the last three years, he has been serving as a Senior Manager at Indian Immunologicals Limited, a reputed vaccine manufacturer. The appellant was convicted under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) by the Sessions Judge. He had been acquitted under Section 304-B IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appellant was granted bail on 07-04-2025, with the execution of his sentence suspended during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant was directly involved in vaccine research and development, which is of critical importance to public health and national interest. Due to his conviction, he has been restrained from further working on the vaccine program. The Appellant filed the instant application seeking a stay/suspension of the conviction itself.
Analysis and Decision
The Court referred to Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (1995) 2 SCC 513, wherein the Supreme Court observed that the scope of Section 389(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), extends to conferring power on the Appellate Court to stay the operation of the order of conviction. The Supreme Court had further observed that an appeal under Section 374 CrPC is essentially against both conviction and sentence. It emphasized that if a conviction leads to a disqualification, the Appellate Court should not give a narrow meaning to Section 389(1) to debar it from granting a stay in a fit case, as otherwise, the damage done cannot be undone if the conviction is later set aside. High Courts could exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC if the power was not found in Section 389(1). While granting a stay of conviction, the courts must examine the pros and cons and, if satisfied that a case is made out, may impose appropriate conditions.
The Court further noted Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab, (2007) 2 SCC 574, wherein the Supreme Court laid down that an appellate court can suspend or grant stay of order of conviction. However, the person seeking a stay of conviction must specifically draw the attention of the appellate court to the consequences that may arise if the conviction is not stayed, and further the grant of stay of conviction can be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the special facts of the case.
The Court noted the appellant’s submission that he is a Scientist involved in vaccine development research, and due to his conviction, he was not allowed to join his duties. This was a greater issue of public health and national interest. In light of the afore-stated reasons, the Court was of the view that this was a fit case in which the order of conviction as well as execution of sentence, appealed against, should be suspended.
The Court suspended the order of conviction as well as execution of sentence, appealed against, during the pendency of the appeal.
[Akash Yadav v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2025, decided on 11-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Harshit Sanwal, Advocate
For the Respondent: V.S. Rawat, A.G.A.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
