Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh Sankhla vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 February, 2024
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg, Madan Gopal Vyas
[2024:RJ-JD:8393-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1137/2023
Dinesh Sankhla S/o Shri Brima Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Village Rajasani, P.s. Mathania, Dist. Jodhpur (Presently Lodged
In Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikander Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, 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 18.03.2019 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases),
District Bikaner, in Sessions Case No.140/2013:
Offence U/s Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of
payment of fine
302 IPC L.I. Rs.10,000/- Ten Months'
S.I.
449 IPC Ten Years' R. I. Rs.10,000/- Ten Months'
S.I.
342 IPC One Year R.I. Rs.1,000/- One Month S.I.
326 IPC Ten Years' R.I. Rs.10,000/- Ten Months'
S.I.
324 IPC One Year R.I. Rs.5,000/- Five Months'
S.I.
309 IPC One Year S.I. Rs.1,000/- One Month S.I.
[2024:RJ-JD:8393-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1137/2023]
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension
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 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 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 12 years during trial
and after sentence.
[2024:RJ-JD:8393-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1137/2023]
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 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 12 years
and apparently, there are no chances of hearing of the present
[2024:RJ-JD:8393-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1137/2023]
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, we are inclined to
suspend the substantive sentence of the appellant-applicant,
namely, Dinesh Sankhla S/o Shri Brima Ram, 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 Additional Sessions
Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), District Bikaner vide judgment
dated 18.03.2019 in Sessions Case No.140/2013, against the
appellant-applicant, namely, Dinesh Sankhla S/o Shri Brima Ram
shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal
subject to the condition that the appellant shall deposit the 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.
[2024:RJ-JD:8393-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1137/2023]
2. That if the applicant changes 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. The appellant shall deposit the 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
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 do 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
11-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
