Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jaitaram vs State on 20 December, 2021
Bench: Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Suspension of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 475/2021
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1171/2018
Jaitaram S/o Pokar Ram, Aged About 59 Years, B/c Vishnoi, R/o
Khindakaur, P.S. Osiyan, Distrct Jodhpur.
(At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
20/12/2021
This present second application for suspension of sentences
under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the
appellant-applicant Jaitaram S/o Pokar Ram, who has been
convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act
Cases, Jodhpur vide judgment dated 19.09.2018 passed in
Sessions Case No.136/2006 for 12 years R.I. & a Fine of
₹1,20,000/- & in default of payment of fine to further undergo
nine months R.I.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicant
on the application for suspension of sentences and learned Public
Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
Learned Public Prosecutor does not wish to file reply to the
application filed for suspension of sentence.
(2 of 4) [SOSA-475/2021]
Arguing on the application for suspension of sentences, it is
submitted by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant that
statement of seizure officer Devendra Singh as PW-12 and he has
admitted that appellant was not identified by any of the person of
the seizure party. Learned counsel further stated that during
investigation, no documentary evidence was collected which can
show that recovery place belongs to the applicant - appellant -
Jaitaram. Learned counsel also stated that in site plan (Ex.22),
there is no way from which vehicle can be passed. He also stated
that out of two witnesses of recovery, Kalu Singh declared hostile
and Puna Ram not produced by the prosecution, even,
investigating officer was also not produced in this case. Learned
counsel stated that applicant-appellant is behind the bars since
five and half years. Lastly, learned counsel appearing for the
applicant-appellant has submitted that hearing of the appeal is
likely to take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for
the applicant-appellant prayed that the application for suspension
of sentences may kindly be allowed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application
for suspension of sentences of the applicant-appellant and stated
that revenue record was collected during the investigation which
shows that accused-appellant was one of the owner of the said
recovery place.
In reply, learned counsel for the applicant - appellant stated
that the said document was not exhibited during the evidence and
the same was also belonged to the joint ownership and on the
basis of which it cannot proved that recovery place was belonged
to the applicant-appellant.
(3 of 4) [SOSA-475/2021]
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly the abovementioned admission made by the seizure
officer PW-12 and the fact that the investigating officer and one of
the recovery witness Puna Ram were not produced before the
court below and one witness Kalu Singh declared hostile; that
hearing of the appeal is likely to take time in near future,
therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits
of the case, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentences
awarded to the applicant-appellant.
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 learned Special Judge,
NDPS Act Cases, Jodhpur vide judgment dated 19.09.2018 passed
in Sessions Case No.136/2006, against the appellant-applicant -
Jaitaram S/o Pokar Ram shall remain suspend till the final
disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail
subject to the condition that he shall furnish a personal bond in
the sum of ₹100,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of
₹50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his
appearance in this Court on 20.01.2022 and whenever ordered to
do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated
below:-
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.
(4 of 4) [SOSA-475/2021]
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
75-Arvind/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
