Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Natwar Lal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 February, 2024
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg, Madan Gopal Vyas
[2024:RJ-JD:8372-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 329/2022
Natwar Lal S/o Shri Gautam Katara, Aged About 32 Years, B/c
Meena R/o Gada Moreya Ps Dungarpur Sadar Dungarpur Dist.
Dungarpur Raj. (Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JVS Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Order
16/02/2024
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 23.08.2016 passed by
the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, District Dungarpur in
Session Case No.43/2014 :
Offence U/s Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of
payment of fine
366-A IPC 10 years RI Rs.5,000/- 6 month SI
376(2)(I)(N) Life Rs.5,000/- 6 month SI
IPC Imprisonment
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension
[2024:RJ-JD:8372-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-329/2022]
of sentence during the pendency of the appeal and for release on
bail.
3. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-
applicant is that as the applicant is in custody for more than 11
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 with the submission that as the appellant-
applicant has committed heinous offence, suspension of sentence
of such offender would send adverse message in the society.
However, he has not denied that the appellant-applicant has
already undergone sentence of more than 11 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.
[2024:RJ-JD:8372-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-329/2022]
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 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
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 11 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.
[2024:RJ-JD:8372-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-329/2022]
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 appellant-applicant,
namely, Natwar Lal S/o Shri Gautam Katara during the pendency
of the appeal.
12. Accordingly, the instant 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 Special
Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Dungarpur vide judgment dated
23.08.2016 in Sessions Case No.43/2014, against the appellant-
applicant, namely, Natwar Lal S/o Shri Gautam Katara shall
remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal subject
to deposition of 50% of the fine amount as imposed by the
learned trial Court 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 learned trial
Judge for his appearance in this court on 18.03.2024 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 their address(s), they
will give in writing their changed address to the trial
court.
4. Appellant shall deposit 50% of the fine amount as
imposed by the learned 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
[2024:RJ-JD:8372-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-329/2022]
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-applicant does not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
4-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
