Rajasthan High Court
Kuldeep Kanodia S/O Puran Mal B/C ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 November, 2021
Bench: Manoj Kumar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S. B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 978/2020
IN
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1412/2019
Kuldeep Kanodia S/o Puran Mal, R/o Vill. Bhadonda Kalan, PS
Baggad Dist. Jhunjhunu At Present R/o House No 1/935, Sector
No 1 Malviya Nagar Jaipur (At Present Lodged In Central Jail
Jaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhawani Shankar Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS
Order
15/11/2021
1. Heard on second bail application (suspension of
sentence).
2. The appellant has filed the appeal along with second
bail application (suspension of sentence).
3. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment
dated 31.05.2019 passed by court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Women Atrocity Cases No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in
Sessions Case No. 42/2016, by which the appellant has been
convicted for offence/s under Sections 376(2)(N) and 384 IPC and
sentenced to maximum term of ten years imprisonment. The first
application for suspension of sentence is dismissed as withdrawn
(2 of 3) [SOSA-978/2020]
on 26.11.2019.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the
appellant that appellant was on bail during trial. Certificate under
Rule 311(3) of Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 has been placed
on record according to which appellant was on bail during trial and
at present, he is in Central Jail, Jaipur. He has been sentenced to
maximum term of ten years for offence under Section 376(2)(N)
IPC and out of which he has already served more than four years
of sentence, as per custody certificate submitted by learned Public
Prosecutor. Appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. The
statements of prosecturix have been recorded as PW1. There are
several material contradictions in the prosecution case. It is a
case of consent. Statements of prosecturix along with appellant
have been placed on record which shows that the appellant has
been falsely implicated due to some extraneous reasons. Learned
counsel for the appellant referred to statements of other witnesses
including the statement of PW9-Dr. Sangeeta Agnihotri, who has
stated that the prosecutrix has stated to her that she was married
for last six months when she approached the PW9 for medical
examination. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamal Vs. State
of Haryana [(2004) 13 SCC 526]
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second bail
application (suspension of sentence).
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the
evidence available on record.
(3 of 3) [SOSA-978/2020]
7. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties, evidence available on record and overall
facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting upon
merits of the case, this Court deems just and proper to allow the
second bail application (suspension of sentence).
8. Accordingly, the second bail application (suspension of
sentence) is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded
to accused-appellant Kuldeep Kanodia S/o Puran Mal shall remain
suspended till disposal of this criminal appeal and he shall be
released on bail provided the appellant furnishes a personal bond
of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) and two sureties of Rs.50,000/-
(Fifty Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court
for his appearance in this Court on 15.12.2021 and as and when
called upon to do so.
(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J
Pooja /38
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
