Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mathura Lal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 October, 2023
Bench: Augustine George Masih, Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:35829-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc 5th Suspension of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 1048/2023
Mathura Lal S/o Mohanji, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Gada Ki
Bhagri Plan Khurd, P.S. Ghasa, Dist. Udaipur
(Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Kumar for
Mr. J.V.S. Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
18/10/2023
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 08.07.2015 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1 Camp Mawli, Udaipur,
in Session Case No.95/2013:
Offence Sentence Fine
302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo five
months' S.I.
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the present fifth
application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C.
during the pendency of the appeal and for release on bail. Earlier
fourth application seeking suspension of sentence was dismissed
on 09.01.2019.
[2023:RJ-JD:35829-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1048/2023]
3. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-
applicant is that as the applicant is in custody for more than 12
years and there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in near
future, thus, in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court dated 15.09.2022 in Sonadhar v. The State of Chhattisgarh
: SLP (Crl.) No.529/2021, the sentence of the applicant be
suspended and he be enlarged on bail.
4. Further submissions have been made that there are no
reasons and / or extenuating circumstances for denial of bail.
Submissions have also been made with reference to order dated
05.10.2021 in Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh : SLP
(Crl.) No.4633/2021, wherein also observations have been made
regarding grant of bail in the appeal at the High Court stage
except certain exceptions and that none of the exceptions are
applicable in the present case.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for
suspension of sentence. However, he has not denied that the
appellant-applicant has already undergone sentence of more than
12 years during trial and after sentence.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on
record.
7. Looking to the fact that criminal appeals pertaining to year
2018 are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing of
the present appeal in near future.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonadhar (supra),
while dealing with SMW (Crl.) No.4/2021 pertaining to 'life
[2023:RJ-JD:35829-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1048/2023]
convicts in jail whose appeals are pending before the High Court'
inter-alia, issued the following directions :-
"We consider appropriate to issue directions in terms of
the aforesaid suggestions to the Patna High Court and
on a pari materia basis to even the other High Courts.
However, in order to carry out this exercise, the data
would have to be compiled of such of the persons who
have been in custody for more than 10 years and more
than 14 years, with these persons being considered for
grant of bail pending appeal, if there is no chance of
hearing of the appeal in the near future, unless there are
reasons for denial of bail. We can understand if any of
the parties is delaying the appeal itself but short of that,
we are of the view that all persons who have completed
10 years of sentence and appeal is not in proximity of
hearing with no extenuating circumstances should be
enlarged on bail."
9. Prior to that in the case of Saudan Singh (supra) also
observations were made regarding grant of bail in cases where
convicts have undergone sentence for sufficiently long time and
appeals were pending at the High Court stage with exceptions
indicated therein.
10. In the present case as observed herein-before, the appellant-
applicant has already undergone sentence for more than 12 years
and apparently, there are no chances of hearing of the present
appeal in near future. Except for the fact that the appellant-
applicant was involved in offence leading to his conviction for life,
nothing has been brought on record by way of extenuating
circumstances for denial of suspension of sentence.
11. Consequently, following the order in the case of Sonadhar
(supra) and observations made in Saudan Singh (supra), without
making any observations on merits of the case and only on
account of the fact that more than 12 years' sentence has already
been undergone by the appellant-applicant, we are inclined to
suspend the substantive sentence of the appellant-applicant,
[2023:RJ-JD:35829-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1048/2023]
namely, Mathura Lal S/o Mohanji, during the pendency of the
appeal.
12. Accordingly, the instant fifth application for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
ordered that substantive sentence passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, No.1 Camp Mawli, Udaipur, in Session
Case No.95/2013 against the appellant-applicant, namely, Mathura
Lal S/o Mohanji, 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/- each with two
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial
Judge for his appearance in this court on 24.11.2023 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 change 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 his address(s)
he will give in writing their changed address to the
trial court.
13. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused-
applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also
be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall
not been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to
pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial court. In case the
[2023:RJ-JD:35829-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1048/2023]
said accused-applicant do not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ
75-Anil Singh/Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
