Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 August, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi, Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 543/2021
1. Kuldeep Singh S/o Devi Singh, Aged About 34 Years,
Guda Jaitsingh, P.s. Rani, Dist. Pali (Raj.). (At Present
Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).
2. Mahipal Singh S/o Devi Singh, Aged About 36 Years,
Guda Jaitsingh, P.s. Rani, Dist. Pali (Raj.). (At Present
Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. BR Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
17/08/2022
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he
does not want to press the application for suspension of sentence
preferred on behalf of appellant No.1 - Kuldeep Singh.
In view of the above, the application for suspension of
sentence qua appellant No.1 - Kuldeep Singh is dismissed as
not pressed.
So far as appellant No.2 - Mahipal Singh is concerned,
learned counsel has submitted that the trial court has grossly
erred in convicting and sentencing him. It is also submitted that it
is clear from the Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-1) of the complainant
(2 of 4) [SOSA-543/2021]
that the allegations are only against appellant No.1 - Kuldeep
Singh and name appellant No.2 - Mahipal Singh is not mentioned.
Learned counsel has also submitted that the appellant No.2 -
Mahipal Singh has later been implicated only for the reason that
he is the real brother of appellant No.1 - Kuldeep Singh. It is
further submitted that all the alleged eye-witnesses have also
initially not named appellant No.2 - Mahipal Singh, however later
on, he was implicated. It is also submitted that there is no
recovery of any weapon at the instance of appellant No.2 -
Mahipal Singh and no other reliable evidence is available on record
against him. It is further submitted that hearing of the appeal
preferred on behalf of appellant No.2 - Mahipal Singh is likely to
take time and looking to his custody period, his application for
suspension of sentence may be allowed.
Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
application for suspension of sentence preferred on behalf of
appellant No.2 - Mahipal Singh.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
It is true that in Parcha Bayan, name of the appellant No.2 -
Mahipal Singh is not figured, however later on, complainant as
well as other witnesses have named him. It is to be noticed that
no recovery of any weapon is effected from appellant No.2 -
Mahipal Singh.
Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, keeping in view the fact that hearing of the appeal is likely
to take time, without commenting on the merits of the case, we
(3 of 4) [SOSA-543/2021]
are inclined to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to
appellant No.2 - Mahipal Singh.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence
No.543/2021 preferred on behalf of appellant No.2 - Mahipal
Singh son of Devi Singh is allowed and it is ordered that the
substantive sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Bali, Distt. Pali vide judgment dated 02.08.2021 in
Sessions Case No.13/2015 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 19.09.2022 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.
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
(4 of 4) [SOSA-543/2021]
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.
(FARJAND ALI),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J
17-Anshul/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
