Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 12225 Raj
Judgement Date : 5 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 451/2021
Praveen S/o Shri Moola Ram Heeragar, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Jhupaghat, Sirohi Police Station Kotwali, Sirohi. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner Versus State, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Gour.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP.
Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Annu Choudhary.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
05/08/2021
The appellant applicant herein stands convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 08.04.2019 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Abu Road, District
Sirohi in Sessions Case No.67/2016 (06/2016):
Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default
sentences
Section 460 IPC 10 Years' R.I. Rs.10,000/- 6 Months' R.I.
Section 302 IPC Life Rs.25,000/- 1 Year's R.I.
Imprisonment
Section 302 IPC Life Rs.25,000/- 1 Year's R.I.
Imprisonment
Section 380 IPC 5 Years' R.I. Rs.5,000/- 2 Months' R.I.
4/25 of the Arms 1 Year's S.I. Rs.2,000/- 1 Month's S.I.
Act
(2 of 4) [SOSA-451/2021]
Learned counsel Shri S.S. Gour representing the applicant
appellant urges that after rejection of the previous applications for
suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the appellant, the
application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the co-
accused Pankaj Kumar (276/2021) has been accepted by this
Court and that the case of the applicant appellant is in no manner
distinguishable. It is rather contended that the evidence of the
prosecution as against the appellant is weaker as compared to
that in existence against the co-accused Pankaj Kumar. On this
grounds, learned counsel Shri Gour craved indulgence of bail for
the applicant appellant during pendency of the appeal.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel
representing the complainant have vehemently and fervently
opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel and
urged that it is a case of gruesome double blind murders and
wholesome incriminating recoveries were effected from the
appellant during the course of investigation and thus, he does not
deserve indulgence of bail during pendency of appeal.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the
impugned Judgment and the record.
It may be stated here that previous two applications filed on
behalf of the applicant appellant were for seeking interim bail and
no consideration was ever made on his case on merits. Thus, for
all practical purposes, this is a first application for suspension of
sentences filed on behalf of the appellant.
After going through record, we find that the prosecution case
is based totally on circumstantial evidence primarily in form of
(3 of 4) [SOSA-451/2021]
recoveries. While examining the application for suspension of
sentences filed on behalf of the co-accused Pankaj Kumar, we
have found that there are significant loopholes in the prosecution
case regarding alleged recoveries and there is a strong indication
from the record regarding the investigation being tainted. The
appellant is in custody since 10.12.2015 and his case is not much
distinguishable from that of the co-accused Pankaj Kumar whose
application for suspension of sentences has been accepted by this
Court vide order dated 29.07.2021.
In this background, we are of the view that the appellant has
available to him strong grounds so as to assail the impugned
Judgment. Hearing of the appeal is unlikely in the near future.
In this view of the matter and, having regard to the facts
and circumstance as available on record, it is considered just and
proper to suspend the sentences awarded to the appellant, during
pendency of the appeal.
Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of
sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
ordered that the sentences passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, No.2, Abu Road, District Sirohi, vide judgment dated
08.04.2019 in Sessions Case No.67/2016 (06/2016) against the
appellant-applicant Praveen, shall remain suspended till final
disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail,
provided he 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 his appearance in this court on 06.09.2021
and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on
the conditions indicated below:-
(4 of 4) [SOSA-451/2021]
1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.
The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered
as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the
accused-applicant(s) was/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 applicant(s) does not appear before the trial
court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High
Court for cancellation of bail.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
9-Tikam/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!