The former police chief, convicted and sentenced to four years in a disproportionate assets case, has asked the Kerala High Court to suspend that sentence while his appeal against the conviction is heard. The State wanted time to oppose, calling the matter exceptional because of the high office he once held. The Court, granting the two days sought, questioned the premise: where the sentence is under ten years, it observed, the State has no absolute right to file an objection at all. The conviction itself remains under challenge.
Kochi: The Kerala High Court has granted the State of Kerala two days’ time to file its objection to a plea by former Director General of Police Tomin J. Thachankary seeking suspension of his four-year sentence, imposed on his conviction in a disproportionate assets case, pending the hearing of his appeal against the conviction [Tomin J. Thachankary v. State of Kerala].
When the matter came up before Justice A. Badharudeen, the public prosecutor submitted that the State wished to file a counter opposing the sentence-suspension plea in the appeal.
The exchange
Counsel for Thachankary questioned what was special about the case, given that only a four-year sentence had been imposed. The Court, too, orally questioned the State’s characterisation of the matter as special:
“You don’t have an absolute right to file objection in a case where the conviction is less than 10 years. Why you state that this is special case?”
The prosecutor submitted that this was an exceptional case because the convict had held a high-profile post. Reflecting on that submission, the Court observed that suspending the sentence would send a message to those in high office, and that the question was whether exceptional circumstances existed:
“So this is a message to all DGPs, Ministers, Chief Ministers etc. Question is if there are exceptional circumstances.”
The Court granted the State two days to file its objection.
The conviction
The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kottayam had convicted Thachankary under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs 30.84 lakh. As recorded, the Special Judge found that even after giving the benefit of every material discrepancy established through the evidence, what remained was still 52.33% of his known income by way of assets said to be disproportionate.
Thachankary has appealed against the conviction, and it is in that appeal that he has sought suspension of the sentence. The conviction is therefore not final and is under challenge; the present proceedings concern only whether the sentence should be suspended pending the appeal, and the State’s request for time to oppose that plea.
Why it matters
The exchange turns on the law governing suspension of sentence pending a criminal appeal. When an appellate court admits an appeal against a conviction, it may suspend the sentence and release the convict on bail; the exercise of that power depends on the facts, including the length of the sentence and the nature of the offence. The Court’s oral observation, that there is no absolute right for the State to object where the sentence is less than ten years, reflects the ordinary position that suspension in such cases is not exceptional, and that a convict serving a shorter sentence is not, as a rule, to be kept in custody through the pendency of the appeal.
The State’s contention that the case is exceptional because of the high office the convict held raises a different question, whether the identity or former position of a convict can justify a stricter approach to suspension. The Court’s remark that suspending the sentence would send a message to those in high office captures the competing pull: the public interest in not being seen to treat the powerful leniently, against the settled principle that suspension is governed by the ordinary criteria and not by the profile of the convict. Which consideration prevails will turn on whether the State can show the exceptional circumstances the Court asked it to demonstrate.
What has happened so far is procedural: the State has been given two days to file its objection, and the suspension plea will be decided thereafter. Thachankary stands convicted by the trial court, but that conviction is under appeal and is not final; the appellate court has yet to rule either on the suspension of his sentence or on the merits of his challenge to the conviction. The outcome of the suspension plea will determine only whether he remains in custody, or is released, while that appeal is heard.
Case Title: Tomin J. Thachankary v. State of Kerala [Crl.A No. 1239 of 2026]
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Date of Hearing: September 22, 2026
Conviction: Under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kottayam; four years’ imprisonment and Rs 30.84 lakh fine
Status: State granted two days to object to the plea for suspension of sentence; plea pending. Conviction under appeal and not final.