Asharam @ Ashumal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 8913 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc. Third Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 220/2022

Asharam @ Ashumal S/o Sh. Thewardas, Aged About 83 Years, B/c Sindhi, R/o Sant Shri Asharam Bapu Ashram, Motera Road, Sabarmati, P.s. Chandkheda, Dist. Ahmedabad (Guj.). (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur For 9 Years 3 Months 22 Days (With Remission)).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajesh Inamdar Mr. R.S. Saluja For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, AAG Mr. R.R. Chhaperwal, PP Mr. P.C. Solanki for the Complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

07/07/2022

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant,

learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant.

Perused the material available on record.

This is the third application for suspension of sentences

filed on behalf of the appellant Asharam @ Ashumal, who has

been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated

25.04.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, POCSO

Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.116/2016 (152/2013)

(NCV No.129/2016):

                                            (2 of 4)                 [SOSA-220/2022]


Offences                Sentences               Fine               Fine Default
                                                                   sentences
Section 370(4) IPC 10 Years' R.I.               Rs.1,00,000/- 1 Year's R.I.
Section 342 IPC         1 Year's R.I.           Rs.1,000/-         1 Month's R.I.

Section 506 IPC         1 Year's R.I.           Rs.1,000/-         1 Month's R.I.

Section   376(2)(f) Life            Rs.1,00,000                    1 Year's R.I.
IPC                 Imprisonment
                    (The remainder
                    of Natural Life
                    of the Accused)

Section 376D IPC        Life            Rs.1,00,000                1 Year's R.I.
                        Imprisonment
                        (The remainder
                        of Natural Life
                        of the Accused)

On the previous date of hearing, we had asked the

learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the

appellant to apprise the court regarding the status of the trial

going on against the appellant in the State of Gujarat. This court

is apprised that in the said case, the prosecution evidence is yet

continuing. The appellant has been denied bail by the competent

court at Gujarat on more than one occasions.

Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Devadatt Kamat, assisted

by Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, representing the appellant, advanced the

following arguments to buttress the prayer for releasing the

appellant on bail :-

1. That the appellant is an old aged man of around 83 years and

is suffering from numerous ailments.

2. That the order passed by this court on 10.02.2022 directing

summoning of witness Mr. Ajay Pal Lamba under Section 391 CrPC

(3 of 4) [SOSA-220/2022]

is subject matter of challenge before Hon'ble Supreme Court and

thus, there is no possibility of the appeal being heard and decided.

3. That looking to the prolonged custody period suffered by the

appellant, which is nearly 9 years and 7 months, he deserves

indulgence of bail.

4. That from a bare perusal of the statement of the victim Mst. 'S'

(P.W.5), it is writ large on the face of the record that the offences,

for which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to life

imprisonment, are prima facie not made out.

Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for

the complainant, on the other hand, vehemently and fervently

opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel.

They urged that the appeal has been listed for hearing on more

than one occasions and it is the defence counsel, who have been

seeking adjournments. Thus, as per the learned Public Prosecutor,

the ground of delay is not available to the appellant. It is further

submitted that even releasing the appellant on bail in the present

appeal would serve no purpose whatsoever because the appellant

continues to be in custody in the criminal trial going on at Gujarat.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the material

available on record.

A perusal of the order-sheets of the appeal would

indicate that the matter was listed for hearing on more than one

occasions, but adjournments have been sought by the defence for

one reason or the other. Two previous applications for suspension

of sentences preferred on behalf of the appellant have been

(4 of 4) [SOSA-220/2022]

dismissed by the court after arguments had been advanced to

some extent albeit by way of withdrawal. The appellant continues

to be in custody in the trial going on at Gujarat.

In wake of the discussion made hereinabove; looking to

the nature and gravity of the allegations, and considering the fact

that the appeal itself is ripe for hearing, we are of the opinion that

the appellant does not deserve indulgence of bail. Hence, the

instant application for suspension of sentences is rejected as being

devoid of merit.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

3-Vivek/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)