Rajudan vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 13937 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Cri. Misc. Appl. for Suspension of Sentence No. 1152/2022

in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1937/2022

1. Rajudan S/o Sh. Narudan, Aged About 22 Years, Village Chavandiya, P.s. Railmagra, Dist. Rajsamand. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur).

2. Shambhoodan S/o Sh. Devraj, Aged About 28 Years, Village Chavandiya, P.s. Railmagra, Dist. Rajsamand. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur).

3. Ishwardan S/o Sh. Ibadan, Aged About 26 Years, Village Chavandiya, P.s. Railmagra, Dist. Rajsamand. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur).

Subhkaran S/o Sh. Badridan, Aged About 22 Years,

4. Village Chavandiya, P.s. Railmagra, Dist. Rajsamand.

(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur).

5. Shivkaran S/o Sh. Devraj, Aged About 23 Years, Village Chavandiya, P.s. Railmagra, Dist. Rajsamand. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur).

6. Rajudan S/o Sh. Hemdan, Aged About 22 Years, Village Chavandiya, P.s. Railmagra, Dist. Rajsamand. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur).

----Appellants Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Ganesh S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Salvi, Village Chavandiya, Teh.

Railmagra, Dist. Rajsamand.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

28/11/2022

Admit.

Issue notice.

(2 of 4) [SOS-1152/2022]

Heard learned counsel for the parties on suspension of

sentence application. Perused the impugned judgment and the

material available on record.

Accused-appellants          Offences         Sentences            Fine          Fine
                                                                                Default
                                                                                sentences
Rajudan,     Shambhoodan, Section       147 2 year's S.I.         Rs. 5000/-   One
Ishwardan,      Subhkaran, IPC                                                 months
Shivkaran and Rajudan                                                          SI
                           Section      323 1 years' S.I.         Rs. 10,000/- One
                           IPC                                                 months
                                                                               SI
                            Section     341 1 month S.I.          Rs. 500/-    Ten days'
                            IPC                                                SI

                            Section 3(1) 5 years S.I.             Rs.10,000/-   Three
                            (x)(xiv) IPC                                        months
                                                                                SI

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellants submits that

due to some hot altercation exchanged in between the parties, the

complainant went to lodge an FIR in which the story has been

exaggerated. There was no cause for the entire family of the

appellants to humiliate or intimidate the complainant party, rather

it was a simple dispute. The appellants were on bail during the

course of the trial in which no complaint was ever made that they

abused the liberty so granted to them. They regularly attended

the Court and on the date of judgment of conviction, they were

present before the trial court. The hearing of the appeal would

likely to take a long time, therefore, keeping the entire family

behind the bars would not be justifiable. He further submits that

besides the submissions on conviction; the learned Judge has

further erred in sentencing and awarding five years imprisonment

to the accused appellants which is in fact excessive.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of

(3 of 4) [SOS-1152/2022]

the case and perused the material available on record at this

stage, this Court is of the considered view that present one is a fit

case to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused appellants.

Accordingly, this suspension of sentence application filed

under Sec.374(2) Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the

substantive sentence passed by the trial court vide judgment

dated 18.11.2022 in Session Case No.11/2019 against appellants

Rajudan S/o Narudan, Shambhoodan S/o Devraj, Ishwardan S/o

Ibadan, Subhkaran S/o Badridan, Shivkaran S/o Devraj and

Rajudan S/o Hemdan shall remain suspended till final disposal of

the aforesaid appeal, provided they execute 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 03.01.2023 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.

(4 of 4) [SOS-1152/2022]

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

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 128-Arti/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)