Supreme Court declines to suspend Tarun Tejpal 10-year sentence while appeals remain pending

Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale rejected the application on 6 November 2026, saying they were considering only suspension at this stage. Section 430 BNSS, Babu Singh and Kashmira Singh explained.

The Supreme Court on Friday, 6 November 2026, declined to suspend the 10-year rigorous imprisonment imposed on journalist Tarun Tejpal by the Bombay High Court at Goa. A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale rejected his application after prima facie examining the evidence on record, and said no case was made out for suspension.

The bench clarified that it was considering only the suspension of sentence at this stage. Tejpal's appeal against the conviction, and the State of Goa's plea to enhance the sentence to life imprisonment, remain pending.

What was argued on 6 November

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal appeared for Tejpal. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State of Goa.

Sibal stressed that the High Court had reversed an acquittal, and argued that suspension of sentence is ordinarily warranted in such a case. He said the High Court had not adequately dealt with what he described as a discrepancy between the prosecution account and the technical evidence.

He also alleged that relevant CCTV footage was not preserved by the investigating agency. The defence added that Tejpal had stayed on bail through the trial and had not misused that liberty.

Mehta opposed the application. He submitted that the defence was trying to reopen issues the High Court had already examined, and that the trial court's judgment had effectively put the survivor's conduct under scrutiny instead of assessing the allegations in their proper context.

The road to the Supreme Court

On 6 August 2026, the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court convicted Tejpal of rape and other offences under the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. It reversed a May 2021 verdict of a special court at Mapusa that had acquitted him of all charges.

The High Court called the trial court's judgment "untenable" and "perverse". It faulted that court for assuming that a complainant in such a case must be a "perfect victim" and behave in a certain way, and said survivors of sexual violence cannot be expected to follow a predetermined pattern of behaviour.

Tejpal, aged 62, moved the Supreme Court on 20 August 2026. He has claimed that he is a victim of political vendetta.

On 25 August 2026 the Court refused to exempt him from surrendering and ordered him to surrender within two weeks. He surrendered in September, and on 25 September 2026 the Court issued notice to the State of Goa on his appeal and to Tejpal on the State's plea for enhancement.

Suspension of sentence under Section 430

Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Its text carries over, with a bail bond added as an option alongside a personal bond.

It lets an appellate court, for reasons recorded in writing, suspend the execution of a sentence while an appeal is pending, and release the appellant on bail or on a bond.

Where the offence carries death, life imprisonment or a term of ten years or more, the court must first give the Public Prosecutor a chance to show cause in writing against release. The Public Prosecutor may later apply to cancel the bail, and the time spent on release is excluded when the sentence is finally computed.

The power is not confined to High Courts. In Babu Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 1978 SC 527), the Supreme Court held that the section applies to every appellate court, itself included, and exercised it in an appeal against a High Court conviction that followed the setting aside of an acquittal.

What courts weigh at this stage

The section lists no test. Decisions such as State v. Captain Jagjit (AIR 1962 SC 253) and Babu Singh point to the chances of the accusation being proved, the nature and seriousness of the offence, the accused's age, health and antecedents, and the risk of flight or tampering with evidence.

Babu Singh adds that bail should not be refused for a punitive purpose.

Delay can tilt the balance. In Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1977 SC 2147), the Court said that suspension is ordinarily not granted to a person serving life imprisonment, but the practice gives way where there is no reasonable chance of the appeal being heard within a reasonable time.

Good conduct on bail during the trial does not settle the question. In State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Wamanrao Smarth (AIR 2008 SC 1793), a High Court had suspended sentences for cheating, forgery and breach of trust because the accused was on bail during trial and had not misused it, and because the appeal would take time.

The Supreme Court set that order aside. It held that the serious nature of the offences made suspension improper.

Reversal of acquittal and the appeal that follows

Section 379 of the Code, now Section 420 of the BNSS, gives a convict an appeal to the Supreme Court as of right when the High Court has reversed an acquittal and sentenced him to death, life imprisonment or a term of ten years or more. A 10-year sentence meets that threshold.

The law on appeals against acquittal explains why the defence leaned on the reversal. In Murugesan v. State (AIR 2013 SC 274), the Court said that an appellate court may re-appreciate the evidence but must remember that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence.

Shyam Babu v. State of U.P. (AIR 2012 SC 3311) held that interference is justified only where the trial court's view is perverse and unreasonable.

The High Court reversed after finding the 2021 judgment untenable, perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The Supreme Court's order of 6 November 2026 rests only on a prima facie view for the purpose of suspension, and does not decide whether that finding is right.

With suspension refused, the sentence continues to operate while the appeals are pending. Tejpal's appeal against conviction and the State of Goa's plea to enhance the sentence to life imprisonment are yet to be heard.