Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Daya Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 5 March, 2024

Bench: Dinesh Mehta, Yogendra Kumar Purohit

[2024:RJ-JD:11024-DB]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
 D.B. Cr. Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 237/2024

                                           in

                  D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 157/2018

Daya Ram S/o Kheema Ji, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Pawa, Police
Station Takhatgarh, District Pali.
                                          (Presently Lodged At Dist. Jail, Pali)

                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Sikander Khan
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order

05/03/2024

1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 27.07.2018 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali in

Session Case No.04/2014 :

     Offence            Sentence                                    Fine
      147       Six months SI
      148       One year's SI
     323/149    One month's SI
     324/149    Six months' SI                  Rs. 500/- and in default thereof
                                                to further undergo 15 days' SI
      452       One year's SI                   Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof
                                                to further undergo one month's
                                                SI
     302/149    Life imprisonment               Rs.5000/- and in default thereof
                                                to further undergo one month's
                                                SI





 [2024:RJ-JD:11024-DB]                   (2 of 5)                       [SOSA-237/2024]

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 appellant-applicant has preferred the present application

on the solitary ground that he has remained in custody for more

than 10 years and there is no likelihood of appeal being taken up

for hearing in near future. Relying upon the directions of Hon'ble

The Supreme Court dated 15.09.2022 in Sonadhar v. The State

of Chhattisgarh : SLP (Crl.) No.529/2021, learned counsel

prayed that the sentence of the applicant be suspended and he be

enlarged on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the

sentence of co-accused Vaga Ram has also been suspended by a

co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.01.2024 in

D.B. Cr. Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.

1279/2023.

5. Learned counsel argued that no reasons and / or aggravating

circumstances exist for denial of bail to the applicant while placing

reliance on the order dated 05.10.2021 of Hon'ble The Supreme

Court in Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh : SLP

(Crl.) No.4633/2021. He read the relevant part/observations

made therein and submitted that the High Court should grant bail

if the accused has served more than 10 years' sentence, except

certain circumstances, and that none of the exceptions are

applicable in the present case.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for

suspension of sentence by submitting that the appellant-applicant

[2024:RJ-JD:11024-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-237/2024]

has committed heinous offence and six other criminal cases had

been registered against him out of which one is still pending

against him and that 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 10 years during trial and after sentence.

7. We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on

record.

8. It is to be noted that long list of criminal appeals even filed

in the year 2008 are pending hearing; there is no possibility that

the present appeal can be taken up for hearing in near future.

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."

[2024:RJ-JD:11024-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-237/2024]

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.

11. In the present case as observed herein-before, the

appellant-applicant has already undergone sentence for 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 a felony which has led to his

conviction for life, no exceptional/aggravating circumstances for

denial of suspension of sentence have been brought on record or

to the notice of the Court. So far as pending cases against the

applicant are concerned, this Court is of the view that they were

registered for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC and do

not constitute that serious offences.

12. Consequently, without making any observations on merits of

the case, we are inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of

the appellant-applicant, namely, Daya Ram S/o Kheema Ji

during the pendency of the appeal.

13. 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, Sumerpur, District Pali vide judgment

dated 27.07.2018 in Session Case No.04/2014, against the

appellant-applicant, namely, Daya Ram S/o Kheema Ji shall

remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he

shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in

[2024:RJ-JD:11024-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-237/2024]

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 05.04.2024 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.