Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raju @ Rajendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 1 March, 2024
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:10506-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 595/2023
In
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.137/2020
Raju @ Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Samartha Ram, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Mochiyo Ki Gali, Goga Ji Talab Ke Pass, Pindwara,
District Sirohi. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
01/03/2024
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 23.06.2016 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Abu Road, District
Sirohi in Sessions Case No.25/2015 (CIS No.19/2013):
Offence Sentence Fine
302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo Six
Months' S.I.
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension
of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and for release on
bail.
[2024:RJ-JD:10506-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-595/2023]
3. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-
applicant is that as the applicant has already undergone the
custody of more than 10 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 the custody of more than 10 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 appeal is pertaining to year
2020 and is pending at the stage of hearing and that there is no
likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future.
[2024:RJ-JD:10506-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-595/2023]
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh
(supra) observed an exception, which could be a broad guideline,
which reads as follows :-
"1. Heinous nature of crime :
(a) Prohibited categories : To ensure public peace and
the well-being of the society, life convicts who are
hardened criminals, repeat offenders, kidnappers, in
crimes related to massacre (three or more than three
murders), habitual criminals, and fall in prohibited
categories as per the U.P. Jail Standing Policy- no bail
should be granted. "
9. 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."
10. 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.
[2024:RJ-JD:10506-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-595/2023]
11. In the present case as observed herein-before, the appellant-
applicant has already undergone sentence of more than 10 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 sentences.
12. 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 only on account of
the fact that more than 10 years' sentences has already been
undergone by the appellant-applicant, we are inclined to suspend
the substantive sentences of the appellant-applicant during the
pendency of the appeal.
13. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of
sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
ordered that substantive sentence passed by learned Additional
Session Judge No.2, Abu Road, District Sirohi in Session Case
No.25/2015 (CIS No.19/2013) against the appellant-applicant,
Raju @ Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Samartha Ram 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 learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court
on 01.04.2024 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of
the appeal on the conditions indicated below:
[2024:RJ-JD:10506-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-595/2023]
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.
14. 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 did not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
6-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
