Rajasthan High Court
Sushil Kumar Son Of Ramsingh vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 January, 2023
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentence Application No. 1259/2022
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1925/2022
Sushil Kumar Son Of Ramsingh, Resident Of Dhis, Police Station
Bahror, District Alwar (Raj) (Presently Accused Petitioner
Confined At Central Jail Alwar)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gurvindra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mahla, P.P.
Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
05/01/2023
Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned
Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence
and perused the judgment impugned dated 16.09.2022 passed by
Special Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 and Commissions for
Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, No. 03, Alwar in Sessions
Case No. 105/2018 whereby the accused-appellant has been
convicted for the offence punishable under sections 363 IPC and
has been sentenced with maximum of seven years rigorous
imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the
trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the
accused-appellant. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that
the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the correct legal
(2 of 3) [SOSA-1925/2022]
and factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached on an
erroneous conclusion of guilt. The prosecutrix has miserably failed
to prove its case beyond every shadow of reasonable doubt. The
checks and balances were not taken care of. He submits that
appeal has already been admitted but not going to be heard in a
short span. He was on bail during the entire course of the trial but
the liberty was never misused. Therefore, the application for
suspension of sentence may be granted.
Learned public prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer
made by learned counsel for the accused-appellant for releasing
the appellant on bail.
A perusal of sub-clause (ii) of Section 389(3) of CrPC
manifestly reveals that when the accused was convicted for a
bailable offence and he/she/they was on bail, the Court which
convicted the accused shall suspend the sentence for a limited
period so as to make him/her/them able to move an appeal unless
special reasons are assigned. The learned trial Judge has not
assigned any special reasons in the impugned judgment as to why
despite the fact that the offence for which the accused was
convicted was bailable, yet the accused-appellant was not
released as per the mandate stipulated under sub-clause (ii) of
Section 389(3). This practice of the learned lower court is not
appreciated and this court expresses its dismay over the same.
Considering the overall submissions of the parties and
looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case while
refraining from passing any comments on the niceties of the
matter and the defects of the prosecution as the same may put an
adverse effect on hearing of the appeal, this court is of the opinion
(3 of 3) [SOSA-1925/2022]
that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the
accused-appellant.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentence passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, POCSO
Act, 2012 and Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act,
2005, No. 03, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 105/2018 against the
appellant-applicant- Sushil Kumar Son Of Ramsingh shall
remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he
shall be released on bail 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 13.02.2023 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 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.
(FARJAND ALI),J
PCG /45
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
