Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mehraj vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 December, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence (Appeal) Application
No. 1120/2022
in
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1875/2022
Samundra Singh S/o Prahlad Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Thailasar, Tehsil and District Churu (Former Patwari, Patwar
Mandal Moulisar, Addl. Charge Ridkhala)
(At present lodged in Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence (Appeal) Application
No. 1132/2022
in
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1906/2022
Mehraj S/o Shri Liyakat Khan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ratan
Nagar, Tehsil and District Churu (Raj.)
(At Present Lodged At Central Jail Bikaner).
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia & Mr. Vipin Makkad
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, P.P.
Mr. A.R. Malkani assistant to Mr. M.A.
Siddiqui, GA-cum-AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
02/12/2022
1. The present applications for bail (suspension of sentence)
have been filed by the applicants.
(2 of 4) [SOSA-1120/2022]
2. The applicant - Samundra Singh has been convicted for the
offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of Indian
Penal Code and applicant - Mehraj has been convicted for the
offences under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code, vide judgment and order dated 16.11.2022
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act,
Bikaner in Sessions Case No.05/2018.
3. Mr. Bijarnia, learned counsel for the applicant - Samundra
Singh submits that the trial court has convicted the applicant on
the basis of conjectures and surmises. He added that in spite of
the fact that not only the complainant, even other witnesses
including the complainant - Satish from whom Rs. 4,000/- were
recovered, have turned hostile and no recovery was made from
the applicant, the trial court has convicted the applicant.
4. Learned counsel further argued that the mutation entry in
question was made on 17.02.2017, whereas, the complaint came
to be lodged on 20.02.2017 and therefore, even demand of bribe
cannot be believed.
5. Mr. Makkad, learned counsel for the applicant - Mehraj while
adopting the arguments of Mr. Bijarnia added that the applicant is
a private person. He, therefore, prays that the sentence awarded
to the applicant be suspended till disposal of the appeal.
6. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other
hand, opposed applicants' prayer by arguing that demand has
been verified and that there is enough material establishing the
(3 of 4) [SOSA-1120/2022]
applicants' guilt and that the applicant - Samundra Singh has
made a demand of bribe.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the
application for suspension of sentence.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective
parties; the material made available for my perusal; considering
the fact that most of the witnesses including the complainant
himself have turned hostile and that recovery of the amount was
made from none other than the complainant - Satish, who himself
has turned hostile, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence
awarded to the applicants during the pendency of the present
criminal appeals.
9. Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence are
allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the Sessions
Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bikaner vide judgment and
order dated 16.11.2022 in Sessions Case No.05/2018 against the
accused-applicants (1) Samundra Singh S/o Prahlad Singh
and (2) Mehraj S/o Liyakat Khan shall remain suspended till
final disposal of present appeals provided each of them executes
two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each and a personal bond
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned trial
Court for their appearance in this Court on 03.01.2023 and
whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the
conditions indicated below:-
1. That they will appear before the trial court in
the month of January every year till the
appeal is decided.
(4 of 4) [SOSA-1120/2022]
2. That if the applicants change the place of
residence, they will give the changed address
in writing to the trial court, High Court as
well as to their counsel in the High Court.
3. Similarly if sureties change their addresses,
they will give in writing their changed
address to the trial court.
10. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused - applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered
as Criminal Misc. Case related to the Sessions Case in which the
accused - applicants 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 account for statistical purpose
relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In
case the said accused applicants do not appear before the trial
Court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High
Court for cancellation of bail.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
12-13-Inder/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
