Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lakshmi Narayan Songara vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 November, 2021
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2101/2021
Lakshmi Narayan Songara S/o Sh. Gopal Ram, Aged About 45
Years, R/o Ward No. 27, Near Panchayat Samiti, Suratgarh, Dist.
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Praveen Kumar S/o Manoharlal Bhatheja, age about 51 years,
R/o Ward No.22 (new Ward No.13), Suratgharh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
3. Bastiram Sankhla S/o Manaram, age about 73 years, R/o
Ward No.21 (New), Mini Market, Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
4. Sampti Kumar Yadav S/o Mainaram, R/o Ward No.28, C.S.F.
Farm Colony, Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.
5. Kamlesh S/o Rudramani, R/o Ward No.14, old SBBJ Main
Branch Road, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
6. Rajender Prasad S/o Ramavtar, B/c Mallah, aged about 60
years, R/o Ward No.26, Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
7. Ashok Kumar S/o Late Shayopatrai Srawagi, b/c Agarwal,
aged about 53 years, R/o Ward No.16, Purana Bazar Suratgarh,
Tehsil- Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.), Proprietor M/s
Bala Ji Iron Store, Chhavi Cinema Road, Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
8. Jyoti Prakash S/o Bherudan Thakarani, B/c Brahaman, aged
about 40 years, R/o Ward No.11 New, Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Baltej Singh Sandhu.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-2101/2021]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
16/11/2021
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
In pursuance of the notices issued by this court, the notices
have been served upon the respondents No.5 & 7 on their close
relatives. Though, the notices are not personally served upon
respondents No.5 & 7, however, looking to the fact that notices
have been served upon close relatives, service is sufficient.
The present petition has been filed seeking a direction that
the sentence passed by different courts convicting the petitioner
vide orders dated 05.02.2016, 04.04.2016, 13.07.2016,
29.05.2019, 06.02.2020, 28.02.2020 and 15.09.2021 should be
allowed to run concurrently in view of section 427 of Cr.PC.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated
21.01.2021, this court allowed the application of the petitioner
and passed the following order:-
"6. The present criminal misc. petition is accordingly
allowed, in terms of the aforementioned judgment
passed in S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.2883/2014
Rajender Kabra Vs. State of Rajasthan. Accordingly, the
sentences passed vide orders dated 06.02.2020,
28.02.2020 and 15.09.2020 passed by learned
ACJM/JM Court, Suratgarh in Criminal Case
No.842/2012, 121/2014 and 385/2018 respectively are
ordered to run concurrently".
The petitioner was behind the bars, therefore, he was not
aware of the total number of cases decided against him and
therefore, vide another order dated 09.02.2021, this court passed
the following order:-
"6. The present criminal misc. petition is accordingly
allowed, in terms of the aforementioned judgment
passed in S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.2883/2014
Rajender Kabra Vs. State of Rajasthan. Accordingly, the
sentences passed vide orders dated 06.02.2020,
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2101/2021]
28.02.2020 and 15.09.2020 passed by learned
ACJM/JM Court, Suratgarh in Criminal Case
No.842/2012, 121/2014 and 385/2018 respectively are
ordered to run concurrently".
The counsel for the petitioner submits that although vide
orders dated 21.01.2021 and 09.02.2021, sentences passed were
allowed to run concurrently but by virtue of two orders having
been passed by this court on 21.01.2021 and 09.02.2021
respectively, the prayer for consolidating all seven cases for
undergoing sentence concurrently by the petitioner could not be
made before the court. Therefore, he prays that the subject
matter of sentences enumerated in the orders dated 21.01.2021
and 09.02.2021 passed by this court should also be directed to
run concurrently and the sentences may be ordered to run
concurrently in all the seven cases as mentioned in the orders
dated 21.01.2021 and 09.02.2021.
I have considered the submissions made at the bar.
It is noted that vide orders dated 21.01.2021 and
09.02.2021, sentences passed in four and three cases against the
petitioner on consecutive occasions were directed to run
concurrently. Since, the sentences awarded in all the seven cases
have not been ordered to run concurrently, therefore, it is ordered
that the sentences enumerated in the orders dated 21.01.2021
and 09.02.2021 shall run concurrently.
In the circumstances, the Criminal Misc. Petition is disposed
of in above terms.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
44-Anil Singh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
