Mahavir S/O Mohanlal Meena vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3975 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3975 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 25 August, 2021

Rajasthan High Court

Mahavir S/O Mohanlal Meena vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 August, 2021

Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Rameshwar Vyas

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

  (1) D.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Suspension of Sentence Application
                           No.795/2020
                                        In
                  D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 708/2018
Mahavir S/o Mohanlal Meena, R/o Rampura Dholo Ka Thana
Gendoli, District Bundi, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In
District Jail, Bundi.)
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                    Versus
 State Of Rajasthan Through PP.
                                                                 ----Respondent

(2) D.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Suspension of Sentence Application No.571/2021 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 708/2018 Mukut Bihari S/o Nathulal Meena resident of Rampura Dholo Ka Thana Gendoli, District Bundi, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In District Jail, Bundi.)

----Appellants Versus State Of Rajasthan Through PP.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Choudhary, PP.

Mr. Manoj Sharma.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

Order

25/08/2021

These two second applications for suspension of sentences

have been preferred by the applicants-appellants who have been

convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated

(2 of 4)

26.02.2018 and 27.02.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge,

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act

1989 Cases, Bundi in Sessions Case No.124/2016 (115/2016):

Offences                   Sentences             Fine             Fine   Default
                                                                  sentences
Section 148 IPC            2 Years SI            Rs.5,000/-       1 Months S.I.
Section 323/149 IPC        6 Months SI
Section 325/149 IPC        4 Years SI            Rs.15,000/- 2 Months S.I.
Section    304       Part 10 Years RI            Rs.20,000/- 6 Months' S.I.
1/149 IPC

Learned Public Prosecutor has chosen not to file reply to the

applications for suspension of sentences and proposes to argue

the matter orally.

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by

learned counsel representing the parties and, have gone through

the impugned Judgment and the record.

The first applications for suspenions of sentences preferred

on behalf of the appellants were dismissed by this Court on

06.09.2018. It may be stated here that the maximum sentence

which has been awarded to the appellants by the trial corut for the

offence under Section 304 Part I IPC is of 10 years. The accused

appellants have sufferred actual custody period of about 5 years

and 9 months. On going through the impugned Judgment and the

record, it becomes apparent that eight accused persons received

injuries in the same incident and a cross-case was lodged wherein,

some persons from the complainant side have reportedly been

convicted for the offence under Section 325 IPC.

(3 of 4)

After rejection of the first applications for suspension of

sentences preferred on behalf of the appellants, the appeal has

not been taken up for hearing even for once. In the intervening

period, application for grant of leave to appeal preferred on behalf

of the complainant has been accepted by this Court. The second

applications for suspension of sentences preferred on behalf of the

co-accused Shravan Lal and Hanuman (528/2021), whose cases

stand on an identical footing with that of the appellants, has been

accepted by this Court vide order dated 10.06.2021.

In this background, we are inclined to accept these

applications for suspension of sentences on parity and on the

ground that the appellants-applicants have served more than half

of sentence awarded to them by the trial court and there is no

likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future.

Accordingly, these second applications for suspension

of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and

it is ordered that the sentences passed by the Special Judge,

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act

1989 Cases, Bundi, vide judgment dated 26.02.2018 and

27.02.2018 in Sessions Case No.124/2016 (115/2016) against the

appellants-applicants (1) Mahavir and (2) Mukut Bihari, 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 27.09.2021 and whenever

ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions

indicated below:-

(4 of 4)

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.