Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member Services -- Sign up today and get free trial for one month.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vikas Pandit vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 May, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:25147]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1438/2023
In
S.B. Criminal appeal No.2338/2023
Jaipal Bhadu S/o Shrichand Bhadu, Aged About 36 Years, R/o-
Manniwali, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sriganganagar (Raj.).
(Presently Lodged In District Jail, Sriganganagar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 1525/2023
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2457/2023
Sandeep Meghwal S/o Shri Jasraj, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Manniwali, Tehsil Sadul Shahar, Dist. Sriganganagar,
Rajasthan. (Lodged In Jail Sriganganagar).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Brij Lal S/o Unknown, R/o Manniwali, Sadul Shahar,
Dist. Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 180/2024
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 217/2024
Vikas Pandit S/o Shri Moolchand, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Manniwali, Tehsil Sadul Shahar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar,
Rajasthan (Lodged In Jail Shri Ganganagar)
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:37:58 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:25147] (2 of 6) [SOSA-1438/2023]
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Brij Lal S/o Unknown, R/o Manniwali, Sadul Shahar,
Dist. Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Sharma
Mr. Dugresh Sharma
Ms. Sapna Vaishnav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 29/05/2024
1. The instant applications for suspension of sentence has been moved on behalf of the applicants in the matter of judgment dated 20.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.21/2021 whereby they were convicted and sentenced as under:-
Name of the Offence for Substantive Fine and default accused which sentence sentence convicted
1.Jaipal Bhadu Section 341 - Fine of Rs.500/- and
2.Sandeep r.w. Section in default of payment Meghwal 34 of the IPC of fine, additional of 7
3.Vikas Pandit days S.I. Section 323 - Six months RI r.w. Section 34 of the IPC Section 326 5 years RI Fine of Rs.5,000/- and r.w. Section in default of payment 34 of the IPC of fine, additional of 3 months R.I. Section 307 10 years RI Fine of Rs.50,000/-
r.w. Section and in default of
34 of the IPC payment of fine,
additional of one
year's R.I.
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:37:58 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:25147] (3 of 6) [SOSA-1438/2023]
2. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal and factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be appreciated again by this court being the first appellate Court.
They submit that applicants are behind the bars around five years. Reliance has been placed on the Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s) 2893/21 titled Manohar Lal Ainani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., wherein it was held vide order dated 15.11.2021 that looking to the prolonged custody period of the petitioner, bail shall be granted to him in that matter. In another landmark judgment of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. reported in AIR 2022 SC 3386, the aforesaid aspect has been reiterated. Hearing of the appeals are likely to take long time, therefore, the application for suspension of sentence may be granted.
3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused-applicants for releasing the appellants on applications for suspension of sentence.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. It is emanating from the record that there is a strong arguable case in favour of the applicants as to whether the appellants were having an intent to kill the victim or it was a simple scuffle only. The victim party sustained injuries; the crucial (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:37:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:25147] (4 of 6) [SOSA-1438/2023] question whether the appellants made an attempt to kill the victim shall be adjudicated after making further appreciation of the evidence while hearing the appeals on merit, but there seems no hope for hearing the appeal on merits in near future.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has propounded guidelines on the subject of bail in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) and has held as under:-
"41. Sub-section (2) has to be read along with Sub-section (1). The proviso to Sub-section (2) restricts the period of remand to a maximum of 15 days at a time. The second proviso prohibits an adjournment when the witnesses are in attendance except for special reasons, which are to be recorded. Certain reasons for seeking adjournment are held to be permissible. One must read this provision from the point of view of the dispensation of justice. After all, right to a fair and speedy trial is yet another facet of Article 21. Therefore, while it is expected of the court to comply with Section 309 of the Code to the extent possible, an unexplained, avoidable and prolonged delay in concluding a trial, appeal or revision would certainly be a factor for the consideration of bail. This we hold so notwithstanding the beneficial provision Under Section 436A of the Code which stands on a different footing.
42. ......
43. A suspension of sentence is an act of keeping the sentence in abeyance, pending the final adjudication. Though delay in taking up the main appeal would certainly be a factor and the benefit available Under Section 436A would also be considered, the Courts will have to see the relevant factors including the conviction rendered by the trial court. When it is so apparent that the appeals are not likely to be taken up and disposed of, then the delay would certainly be a factor in favour of the Appellant.
44. Thus, we hold that the delay in taking up the main appeal or revision coupled with the benefit conferred Under Section 436A of the Code among other factors ought to be considered for a favourable release on bail."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that as some of the questions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants deserves to be appreciated again and if the same will be decided in their favour, they may get acquittal; they were on bail during trial they have served the sentence for around a year and looking to voluminous pendency of (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:37:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:25147] (5 of 6) [SOSA-1438/2023] the cases, there is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal on merits in near future, thus, while refraining from passing any comments on the niceties of the matter, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused appellants.
8. Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the impugned order of sentence dated 20.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.21/2021 against the appellant- applicants (1) Jaipal Bhadu S/o Shrichand Bhadu, (2) Sandeep Meghwal S/o Shri Jasraj and (3)Vikas Pandit S/o Shri Moolchand shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 03.07.2024 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeals on the conditions indicated below:-
(1) That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
(2) That if the applicants changes the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed addresses to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.
(3) Similarly, if the sureties change their addresses, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:37:58 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:25147] (6 of 6) [SOSA-1438/2023]
9. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused- applicants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicants do not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.
(FARJAND ALI),J 474-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:37:58 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)