Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Fateh Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 21 September, 2023
Bench: Arun Bhansali, Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2023:RJ-JD:31277-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
....
D.B. Criminal Misc. Second Suspension Of Sentence
Application (Appeal) No. 650/2023.
IN
D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 209/2019.
Fateh Singh S/o Pratap Singh Chouhan, aged about 30 years, R/
o Racha, Police Station Pahada, District Udaipur.
(Presently lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 645/2023
IN
D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 175/2018.
(Kalyan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan)
Mangal Singh son of Shri Ratan Singh, aged about 57 years,
resident of Racha, Pahada Police Station, District Udaipur
(Lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Jaitawat.
Mr. Dinesh Bisnoi for
Mr. J.V.S. Deora.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP.
[2023:RJ-JD:31277-DB] (2 of 6) [SOSA-650/2023]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Order
21/09/2023
1. The appellants-applicants herein have been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 13.07.2018 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kherwara, District Udaipur
in Sessions Case No.161/2016 (CIS No. 161/2016):
Offence Sentence Fine
147 IPC Six Months' S.I. Rs.500/- and in default of
which to further undergo
seven days' S.I.
148 IPC Two Years' S.I. Rs.2,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo one
month S.I.
458 IPC Five Years' S.I. Rs.5,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo two
months' S.I.
302 or 302/149 Life Imprisonment Rs.25,000/- and in default of
IPC which to further undergo six
months' S.I.
324 or 324/149 Two Years' S.I. Rs. 2,000/- and in default of
IPC which to further undergo one
month S.I.
323 or 323/149 Six Months' R.I. Rs.500/- and in default of
IPC which to further undergo
seven days S.I.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The appellants-applicants have preferred the applications for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension
of sentences during the pendency of the aforesaid appeals and for
their release on bail.
3. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellants-
applicants is that as the applicants are in custody for over 10
[2023:RJ-JD:31277-DB] (3 of 6) [SOSA-650/2023]
years and there is no chance of hearing of the aforesaid appeals 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 sentences of the applicants be
suspended and they 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 applications for
suspension of sentences with the submission that as the
appellants-applicants have committed heinous offence, suspension
of sentences of such offenders would send adverse message in the
society. However, he has not denied that the appellants-applicants
have already undergone sentence of over 10 years during trial and
after sentences.
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
2008 also are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing
of the present appeals 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:31277-DB] (4 of 6) [SOSA-650/2023]
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
appellants-applicants have already undergone sentences for over
10 years and apparently, there are no chances of hearing of the
present appeals in near future. Except for the fact that the
appellants-applicants were involved in offence leading to their
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, we are inclined to
suspend the substantive sentence of the appellants-applicants,
namely, (1) Fateh Singh S/o Pratap Singh Chouhan and (2)
[2023:RJ-JD:31277-DB] (5 of 6) [SOSA-650/2023]
Mangal Singh S/o Ratan Singh, during the pendency of the
aforesaid appeals.
12. Accordingly, the instant applications for suspension of
sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is
ordered that substantive sentence passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Kherwara, District Udaipur, in Session Case No.
161/2016 against the appellants-applicants, namely, (1) Fateh
Singh S/o Pratap Singh Chouhan and (2) Mangal Singh S/o Ratan
Singh, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid
appeals and they shall be released on bail, provided each of them
executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial
Judge for their appearance in this Court on 20.10.2023 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
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.
[2023:RJ-JD:31277-DB] (6 of 6) [SOSA-650/2023]
13. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicants 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
said accused-applicants do not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J
58-59-Mohan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
