Fine-Deposit Condition a Poor Convict Cannot Meet Defeats Right of Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Release

The applicant was convicted under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasirabad, on 10.10.2024 and sentenced to 10 years, of which he had served 7 years and 11 months (paras 10-11). On 07.10.2025 the High Court suspended his sentence pending appeal, subject to conditions that included depositing the fine imposed by the trial court (para 11). He could not deposit the fine of Rs 1 lakh because of his poverty and remained in jail, so he applied for recall of that condition (paras 9, 12). It was heard while three Bar Associations were abstaining from work in protest against the Full Court's decision to declare two working Saturdays a month (paras 1, 3).

The Court first addressed the strike. Relying on Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, it noted that lawyers have no right to strike or call a boycott, not even a token strike, and that court work cannot stop in matters of personal liberty (para 2). Grievances should be settled by dialogue; a committee was already examining the Saturday issue, and the cause-list note of 23.01.2026 made lawyers' presence on working Saturdays optional (paras 3-6). Boycotts violate litigants' Article 21 right to speedy justice, and the right to protest is not absolute: it must be balanced against other citizens' life and liberty (paras 7-8). On the application, the Court held that an appellate court suspending a sentence may impose conditions, but a deposit condition the convict cannot comply with may defeat his right of appeal and violate Article 21 (para 13). It followed para 8 of CBI v. Ashok Sirpal, which says such a condition should not be impossible to comply with (para 13). Poverty and penalty should not hinder liberty; custody despite the release order, only because the applicant could not arrange the fine, violated his right to life and personal liberty (para 14).