Anil vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 10048 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 10048 Raj
Judgement Date : 5 July, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Anil vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 July, 2021

Bench: Sandeep Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 393/2021

Anil S/o Narayan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Navratan Complex, In Front Of Sanskar 2 Apartment, Udaipur (Raj.) (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Order

05/07/2021

The instant application for suspension of sentence

under Section 389 CrPC is preferred on behalf of the appellant-

applicant Anil S/o Narayan, who has been convicted and

sentenced for the offence under Section 498-A IPC vide the

judgment dated 29.01.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge (Women Atrocity Board), Udaipur in Sessions Case

No.104/2018.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel Mr. Dhirendra Singh, representing the

appellant-applicant, drew the Court's attention to the statement of

Hemant Tak (P.W.4), friend of the deceased Lakshita, wife of the

present appellant, and urged that as a matter of fact, Lakshita

was not interested in marrying the appellant and that her family

(2 of 3) [SOSA-393/2021]

members forced her into this relationship. Being perturbed

thereby, she ended her life by committing suicide. The appellant is

in custody for the last nearly 3 years and deserves indulgence of

bail because he has substantial grounds for challenging the

impugned judgment and hearing of the appeal is unlikely in the

near future.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,

vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by

the learned counsel for the appellant. Nonetheless, he too is not

in a position to dispute the fact that the deceased Lakshita was a

divorcee and it was her second marriage with the present

appellant. During his sworn testimony, Hemant Tak (P.W.4), who

was a friend of the deceased, was confronted during cross-

examination with his previous statement (Ex.D/6), wherein there

is a clear reference to the fact that Lakshita called the witness and

told him that she was not happy with her betrothal to the present

appellant and that she had agreed to the marriage under the

pressure of her relatives. He also admitted even when Lakshita

had gone with the appellant for honeymoon to Thailand, she called

him from there and talked to him.

In this background and having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a

fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused

appellant during the pendency of the appeal.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence

filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the

sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge

(Women Atrocity Board), Udaipur vide judgment dated 29.01.2021

in Sessions Case No.104/2018 against the appellant-applicant Anil

(3 of 3) [SOSA-393/2021]

S/o Narayan, 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 06.08.2021 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.