Bhajan Lal And Ors vs State
2023 Latest Caselaw 2461 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 677/2001

1. Bhajan Lal S/o Deosi Ram R/o Maniawali District Sri Ganganagar.

2. Narayan S/o Brij Lal R/o Maniawali District Sri Ganganagar.

3.Vikramjeet S/o Bhagirath R/o Maniawali District Sri Ganganagar.

4. Raghuvir S/o Bhagirath R/o Maniawali District Sri Ganganagar.

5. Ranvir S/o Bhagirath R/o Maniawali District Sri Ganganagar.

6. Brij Lal S/o Deosi Ram R/o Maniawali District Sri Ganganagar.

7. Hira Lal S/o Deosi Ram R/o Maniawali District Sri Ganganagar.

8. Devi Lal S/o Girdhari Lal R/o Thakrai District Sri Ganganagar.

9. Rajaram S/o Lichman Garg R/o Thakrai District Sri Ganganagar.

10. Raju S/o Mukh Ram R/o Thakrai District Sri Ganganagar.

11. Om Prakash S/o Roop Ram R/o Thakrai District Sri Ganganagar.

12. Bhanwar Lal S/o Mangla Ram R/o Thakrai District Sri Ganganagar.

13. Daya Ram S/o Manphool Ram R/o Thakrai District Sri Ganganagar.

14. Brij Lal S/o Ganpat R/o Thakrai District Sri Ganganagar.

15. Darshan Singh S/o Ajaib Singh R/o 72 RB Tehsil Raisinghnagar District Sri Ganganagar.

16. Rati Ram S/o Surja Ram R/o Ward No.9, Rai Singh Nagar District Sri Ganganagar.

                                                                      ----Appellant
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Bhagat Dachich
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

Order

27/03/2023

[2023/RJJD/007524] (2 of 3)

By order dated 06.12.2001, appellant Bhanwarlal S/o Bhim

Sen was interalia granted bail by the Court in relation to his

conviction in judgment dated 22.09.2001 passed by Additional

Sessions Judge No.1 Sriganganagar. Though originally his name

was indicated as Bhanwarlal S/o Mangla Ram, subsequently on

noticing the mistake, the same was ordered to be corrected.

On noticing that the said Bhanwarlal, has not marked his

presence before the learned trial court during the period 2012 to

2020, proceedings were initiated, wherein, it was reported that on

account of his conviction by the Court in another matter, wherein

the allegations pertained to POCSO, he was undergoing the

imprisonment.

Whereafter, a coordinate Bench of this Court on 15.02.2022

ordered that the said Bhanwarlal shall be taken back and lodged

at Central Jail, Sriganganagar and shall not be released without

prior permission of this Court.

Today, the matter has been got listed by the learned Public

Prosecutor with the submissions that the period of substantive

sentence of the said Bhanwarlal is coming to an end today but for

sentence in default of payment of fine, he would not be entitled to

be released and therefore, an appropriate order in view of the

order dated 15.02.2022 be passed.

Learned counsel for the Bhanwarlal made submissions that

the said Bhanwarlal has failed to mark his presence before the

learned trial court, as he was lodged in the central jail, on account

of his conviction in a POCSO Act case and therefore, on account of

his not marking of the presence, he cannot be ordered to be

detained further.

[2023/RJJD/007524] (3 of 3)

Further submissions have been made that the said appellant

would continue to follow the terms of order dated 06.12.2001.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions and stated

that during the course of his sentence which he was undergoing in

the POCSO Act case, he was released on parole from where he

absconded and therefore on that count, he may not be permitted

to be released.

Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for

the parties and the fact that these proceedings were initiated on

account of the report of the District Judge that the appellant

Bhanwarlal has not marked his presence in terms of the order

dated 06.12.2001, during the period of 2012 to 2020, for which he

has given plausible explanation that he was in custody in another

matter, where he was convicted.

We are inclined to order that in terms of the order dated

15.02.2022 wherein it was directed that said appellant shall not be

released without prior permission of this Court, would not come in

way of the appellant, in case, he is entitled to be released

pursuant to the completion of his sentence in the POCSO case

subject to his not required on account of default in payment of

fine in terms of the said judgment or in any other case.

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J Today-Supp.-nitin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)