Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bholaram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 May, 2023
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023/RJJD/016199]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 206/2022
In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.252/2022
1. Bholaram S/o Udai Lal Gurjar, Aged About 32 Years,
Bardiya, P.s. Rathanjna, Dist. Pratapgarh. (Presently
Lodged Central Jail, Udaipur).
2. Raju S/o Ramsukh Gurjar, Aged About 51 Years,
Bherukhera Mangri, P.s. Nasirabad Sadar, Dist. Ajmer.
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur).
3. Kailash Chandra S/o Durgalal Lohar, Aged About 45 Years,
Bewar Road Bandanwada, P.s. Bhinay, Dist. Ajmer.
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur).
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravinder Kumar Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Gauri, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
18/05/2023
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been
moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment dated
03.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases
No.2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.48/2014 whereby he was
convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment of
eight years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of
Rs.80,000/- under Sections 8/21 of the NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Bholaram does not want to
press the present criminal misc. suspension of sentence
[2023/RJJD/016199] (2 of 3) [SOSA-206/2022]
application. However, he seeks liberty to file a fresh bail
application renewing the prayer if the appeal is not heard within a
reasonable time. Accordingly, the present criminal misc.
suspension of sentence application is dismissed qua the petitioner
No.1 Bholaram as not pressed with liberty as prayed for.
3. The appellant No.2 Raju has passed away and the appeal has
been abated to his extent.
4. As far as the case of appellant no.3 Kailash Chandra is
concerned, he has been convicted for commission of offence under
the penal provisions of NDPS act. The alleged contraband is below
the commercial quantity. The embargo contained under Sections
32 and 37 of the NDPS act is not attracted, therefore, the
application for suspension of sentence may be granted.
5.. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused-applicant for
releasing the appellant on application for suspension of sentence.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the
case, more particularly the facts that the accused-appellant was
on bail during the course of trial and the hearing of appeal is likely
to take further more time and considering the overall submissions
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
that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the
accused-appellant.
[2023/RJJD/016199] (3 of 3) [SOSA-206/2022]
8. 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 learned Special Judge of POCSO Act, 2012 and
Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, Chittorgarh
who passed the impugned order 03.03.2022 in Sessions Case
No.48/2014 against the appellant-applicant- Kailash Chandra
S/o Durgalal Lohar, 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 20.06.2023 and
whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the
conditions indicated below:-
1. That they will appear before the trial Court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicants change the place of residence,
they will give in writing their changed addresses to the
trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their addresses, they
will give in writing their changed address to the trial
Court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
120-Hanuman/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
