Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satyanarayan Jeetu vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [SOSA-666/2018]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 666/2018
Satyanarayan Jeetu S/o Shri Jagdish Bargunda, Aged About 19
Years, B/c Bargunda, R/o Station Nagar, Police Station Mandal,
District Bhilwara. (Presently Incarcerated In District Jail,
Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DS Gaur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. AR Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
24/05/2022
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this
Court towards the statement of doctor and the medical report.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that nothing
aggravating circumstances is pointed out by the Doctor in his
statement or in the medical report. Learned counsel further
submits that the appellant was at young age of 19 years at the
time of indent.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that a lenient
view, in the aforesaid circumstances, be taken and the appellant
be released on suspension of sentence, as the appellant has
already undergone a custody period of about six years and five
months'
(Downloaded on 25/05/2022 at 09:02:36 PM)
(2 of 3) [SOSA-666/2018]
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application but is
unable to refute the aforesaid facts.
This Court, on conjointly seeing the medical report;
statement of Doctor; prosecutrix not having been examined;
petitioner being at age of 19 years at the time of incident and over
and all above, the appellant has already undergone a custody
period of about six years and five months, is inclined to grant the
suspension of sentence application.
Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court considers it just and proper to suspend the
substantive sentence awarded to the accused applicant-appellant.
Accordingly, the Suspension of Sentence (Appeal) 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
08.02.2018 in Sessions Case No.125/2017 (40/16) against
applicant-appellant Satyanarayan @ Jeetu S/o Shri Jagdish
Bargunda 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 05.07.2022 and whenever ordered to do so, till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
1. That she/he/they will appear before the trial Court
in the month of January of every year till the
appeal is decided.
2. That if the appellant/appellants changes the place
of residence, he/they/she will give in writing
her/his/their changed address to the trial Court as
(Downloaded on 25/05/2022 at 09:02:36 PM)
(3 of 3) [SOSA-666/2018]
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(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered
as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the
accused-appellant(s) 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(s) does not appear before the trial court,
the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court
for cancellation of bail.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
108-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
