Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vikas Vickey vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 April, 2022

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

(1 of 5) [CRLAS-44/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 44/2021

1. Vikas Vickey S/o Sh. Ram Chandra, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Sahjipura, P.s. Sadar, Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Hanumangarh).

2. Sachin Khanna S/o Sh. Ram Chandra, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Sahjipura, P.s. Sadar, Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Hanumangarh).

----Appellants Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sravan Kumar Sainee. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

04/04/2022

In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its

highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of

all concerned.

Admit.

Issue notice.

Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the

State. Hence, notice need not be issued.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on S.B. Criminal

Misc. (Suspension of Sentence) Application No.75/2022.

(2 of 5) [CRLAS-44/2021]

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sentence

of co-accused Sachin Khanna S/o Sh. Ram Chandra has already

been suspended by this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Criminal Suspension

of Sentence Application No.429/2021 on 01.10.2021.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the

facts and allegations against co-accused Sachin Khanna and the

present appellant are absolutely same. The order dated

01.10.2021, suspending the sentence of co-accused Sachin

Khanna, reads as follows :-

"The present suspension of sentence application has been filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant appellant, who is in judicial custody in connection with Sessions Case No. 17/2019, District Hanumangarh, registered for the offence under Sections 305, 354-D, 306, 506 of IPC and under Section 11/12 of POCSO Act.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant on application for suspension of sentence.

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant stated as per prosecution meeting held on 01.01.2019 and incident had taken place on 02.01.2019 and then report was submitted on 04.01.2019; that there is no evidence of instigation of abetment of suicide soon before the death; PW2 Aadram has turned hostile and Sita Ram and Rishu Doodhwal were not produced by the prosecution; accused-appellant is behind the bars since 11.01.2019. Learned counsel further stated that although there is no evidence of Section 306 accused- petitioner was convicted under Section 305 IPC. Lastly learned counsel submitted that final decision of the appeal is likely to take considerable time, and, therefore, it would be appropriate to keep applicant(s)-appellant under further incarceration.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that two persons committed suicide in the present case

(3 of 5) [CRLAS-44/2021]

and PW-2 Aadram turned hostile but he has supported the story of prosecution before examination-in-chief. Learned counsel further stated that PW 4- Sandeep also supported the story of prosecution and stated that deceased was threatened by the accused appellant.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the fact that there is no clear evidence of instigation or abetment of suicide soon before death and disposal of the appeal will take time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused appellant.

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 learned Special Judge, POCSO, Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 17.12.2020 in Sessions Case No. 17/2019 against the applicant-appellant Sachin Khanna S/o Sh. Ram Chandra, 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.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 08.11.2021 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(s) changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his/her/their 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-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused appellant 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

(4 of 5) [CRLAS-44/2021]

account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused appellant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail."

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the suspension of

sentence application, but is unable to point out even slightest of

difference between the allegations against co-accused Sachin

Khanna and the present appellant.

Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of

the case, this Court deems it just and proper to suspend the

substantive sentence awarded to the accused appellant.

Accordingly, S.B. Criminal (Suspension of Sentence)

Application No. 75/2022 filed under Sec.389 Cr.P.C. is allowed

and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the trial

court vide judgment dated 17.12.2020 in Sessions Case

No.17/2019 against appellant Vikas @ Vickey S/o Sh. Ram

Chandra shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid

appeal, 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 04.05.2022 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 appellant 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, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

(5 of 5) [CRLAS-44/2021]

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of

the accused-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as

Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-

appellant 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-appellant does not appear before the trial court, the

learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for

cancellation of bail.