Smt. Prem Devi W/O Late Shri ... vs Chamanveer Singh @ Chintu S/O ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 560 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     D.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 408/2022

Smt. Prem Devi W/o Late Shri Prakash, Aged About 65 Years,
Resident Of Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur Rajasthan
                                                  ----Complainant-Applicant
                                   Versus
1.      Chamanveer Singh @ Chintu S/o Sahab Singh, Resident
        Of Aajau Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur
2.      The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
                                                   ----Accused-Respondents

For Complainant- : Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta Applicatnt(s) For Accused- : Mr. Jaswant Singh Rathore Respondent(s) For State : Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, Addl.G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Judgment / Order

16/01/2023

1. The matter comes up on an application filed by the

complainant-applicant for recalling of the order dated 29.03.2022

whereby application for suspension of sentence of Chamanveer

Singh along with Pavan Roy was allowed by this Court with

following observations.

"Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the appellant and taking note of the fact that applicants have remained into custody for a period of about 7 years, disposal of appeal will take long and the allegation of use of fire arm is against Rahul. We deem it proper to allow the suspension of sentence applications."

(2 of 2) [CRLMA-408/2022]

2. It is contended by counsel for the applicant that Chamanveer

Singh was the person who was riding the motorcycle and Rahul

was the pillion rider who fired at the deceased. It is also

contended that motorcycle has been recovered at the instance of

Chamanveer Singh and his role is clear from the evidence adduced

before the Court below. It is further contended that the applicant

did not get the opportunity at the time when the application for

suspension of sentence was allowed.

3. Counsel for the accused-respondent has opposed the

application. It is contended that the respondent is not named in

the F.I.R. and F.I.R. was instituted against unknown person. It is

also contended that the complainant has not identified the

respondent in Court. It is further contended that applicant never

filed any power in the present case. Application for suspension of

sentence was allowed as respondent has remained in custody for

more than seven years and the allegation of firing is against

Rahul.

4. We have considered the contentions.

5. This Court has allowed the application for suspension of

sentence on two grounds. Firstly, that the respondent has

remained in custody for more than seven years and secondly, that

the allegation of firing was against Rahul. This Court does not find

any ground for entertaining the present application.

6. Accordingly, present Criminal Misc. Application stands

dismissed.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /40

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)