Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raja Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 January, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 771/2021
1. Raja Singh S/o Ginder Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
17 Kyd, Khajuwala Police Station, Khajuwala, District
Bikaner. (Confined In District Jail, Jaisalmer)
2. Rajendra Kumar @ Rajendra S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About
26 Years, R/o 17 Kyd, Khajuwala Police Station,
Khajuwala, District Bikaner. (Confined In District Jail,
Jaisalmer)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi, through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
10/01/2022
The instant application for suspension of sentences
under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the
appellant-applicants Raja Singh S/o Ginder Singh and Rajendra
Kumar @ Rajendra S/o Mohan Lal, who have been convicted for
the offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 324/149, 323/149 IPC
And Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to various terms
of imprisonments including life imprisonment for the offence under
Section 302/149 IPC vide the judgment dated 16.07.2021 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Sessions
Case No.120/2016 (171/2014).
(2 of 4) [SOSA-771/2021]
Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the
application for suspension of sentence.
As per the prosecution case, Ghamanda Ram, his wife
Nenu and daughter-in-law Gomi were assaulted by some
assailants in the night intervening 17.07.2014-18.07.2014.
Ghamanda Ram was killed and both the ladies were injured in the
incident. Choka Ram, cousin brother of Ghamanda Ram,
submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO, Police Station
Mohangarh on 18.07.2014 at 09.00 a.m., wherein it was alleged
that three assailants, namely, Satpal, Patel and Vinod, had
assaulted Ghamandaram and the two ladies. The crime was
committed in the dead of the night with a motive to loot the
ornaments and other valuables of the victim. During the course of
investigation, the appellants were implicated in this case on the
strength of the statements of the injured witnesses Smt. Nenu
(P.W.1) and Smt. Gomi (P.W.4). A perusal of the sworn testimony
of these two witnesses, it becomes clear that Choka Ram, the first
informant, did not name the appellants as being amongst the
assailants and pertinently alleged that only three persons were
seen assaulting Ghamanda Ram and the two women. On a
perusal of the statements of Smt. Nenu (P.W.1) and Smt. Gomi
(P.W.4), it becomes clear that so far as the appellant-applicants
are concerned, the attempt made by these witnesses to identify
them prima facie appears to be very flimsy. We are, therefore, of
the view that the appellants have strong grounds to assail the
impugned judgment. The hearing of the appeal is likely to
consume time.
In this background and having regard to the over all
facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that
(3 of 4) [SOSA-771/2021]
it is a fit case for grant of indulgence of bail to the appellant-
applicants by suspending the sentences awarded to them by the
trial court during the pendency of the appeal.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentences
filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jaisalmer vide judgment dated 16.07.2021 in Sessions Case
No.120/2016 (171/2014) against the appellant-applicant (1) Raja
Singh S/o Ginder Singh and (2) Rajendra Kumar @ Rajendra S/o
Mohan Lal shall remain suspended till final disposal of the
aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided each
of them 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 10.02.2022 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 of every year till the appeal is
decided.
2. That if any of the applicant 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(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-applicants in a separate file. Such file
be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original 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
(4 of 4) [SOSA-771/2021]
purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial
court. In case any of the accused applicant does not appear before
the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to
the High Court for cancellation of bail.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
30-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
