Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 December, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 755/2021
Sunil S/o Sh. Ramkumar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Chohilawali,
Police Station Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh. (At
Present Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.R. Bhari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
Mr. K.V. Vyas, for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
02/12/2021
The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 13.09.2021 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in
Sessions Case No.4/2016 :
Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default
sentences
Section 302/149 Life Rs.10,000/- 2 Months' S.I.
IPC Imprisonment
Section 307/149 7 Years' R.I. Rs.5,000/- 1 Month's S.I.
IPC
Section 341 IPC 1 Month's S.I.
Section 148 IPC 1 Year's S.I. Rs.1000/- 15 Days' S.I.
(2 of 4) [SOSA-755/2021]
Section 323/149 6 Months' S.I. Rs.500/- 7 Days' S.I.
IPC
He has preferred the instant appeal No.111/2021 for
assailing the impugned judgment and in continuance thereof, the
instant application for suspension of sentences has been moved
under Section 389 CrPC.
Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application
for suspension of sentences.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the co-
accused Rakesh has been granted bail by this Court by order
dated 15.11.2021 by suspending the sentences awarded to him
and since the case of the appellant-applicant Sunil stands on the
same footing, he too is entitled to bail on parity.
Learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Vyas, learned counsel
representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed
the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel.
We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at
bar and have gone through the material available on record.
It is an admitted fact that the Investigating Officer did not
find the appellant involve in the crime and a negative final report
was submitted qua him. The trial court summoned the appellant
as an additional accused while exercising powers under Section
319 Cr.P.C. While dealing with the bail application of the co-
accused Rakesh, this Court dealt with entire prosecution case and
observed as under:-
"Ex-facie, it is apparent that as per the F.I.R. (Ex.P/2)
as well as the testimony of the material prosecution
witnesses Harchand (P.W.1) and Pradeep (P.W.2) (injured),
(3 of 4) [SOSA-755/2021]
only the accused Abhijeet was alleged to be armed with
knife, whereas the other accused were alleged to be armed
with lathis at the time of the incident. Both the witnesses
categorically stated that Abhijeet inflicted knife blows to
Kuldeep and thereafter the other accused persons rained
lathi blows on the deceased Kuldeep and injured Pradeep.
However, not a single injury in the form of laceration etc.
which could correspond to lathi blows being inflicted was
noticed when the Medical Jurist conducted autopsy on the
dead body of Kuldeep and issued postmortem report
(Ex.P/15) and while preparing injury report (Ex.P/16) of the
injured Pradeep.
In this background, we find merit in the
contention of the learned defence counsel that there has
been an attempt of wholesale over-implication by the
material prosecution witnesses while naming the accused as
assailants in this case. As the allegation regarding lathi blows
having been inflicted to the deceased and the injured
Pradeep is not corroborated by the medical evidence. The
appellant was on bail during the course of the trial and since
he made no attempt to misuse the liberty so granted to him,
we are of the opinion that he deserves indulgence of bail
during pendency of the appeal."
Learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel representing the
complainant are not in a position to dispute the fact that on
merits, the case of the appellant is in no manner distinguishable
from that of co-accused Rakesh.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentences filed
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,
Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 13.09.2021 in Sessions Case
No.4/2016 against the appellant-applicant Sunil S/o Shri Ram
(4 of 4) [SOSA-755/2021]
Kumar 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 03.01.2022 and whenever ordered
to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated
below:-
1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is
decided.
2. That if the applicant changes the place of
residence, he will give in writing his 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 in a separate file. Such file be
registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which
the accused-applicant was 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 does not appear before the trial
court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High
Court for cancellation of bail.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
30-Sudhir Asopa/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
