Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hanif Khan vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 May, 2024
Bench: Dinesh Mehta, Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2024:RJ-JD:23735-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 688/2024
IN
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.247/2023
Hanif Khan S/o Shri Ali Khan, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Patraniyon Ki Basti, Sam, P.s. Sam, Dist. Jaisalmer
(At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Jaisalmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan
2. Bahadur Khan S/o Shri Momu Khan, R/o Khiradiyon Ki
Basti, Faledi, Tehsil Sam, Dist. Jaisalmer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Order
24/05/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for
suspension of sentence.
2. The present application for suspension of sentence under
Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on
behalf of the applicant, who has been convicted for the offences
under Sections 148, 341, 323, 324, 325, 326 r/w 149, 307 r/w
149 and 302 r/w 149 of IPC, vide order dated 11.10.2023, passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer (hereinafter
referred to as "trial court") in Sessions Case No.08/2018
(106/2018).
[2024:RJ-JD:23735-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-688/2024]
3. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the application for suspension of sentence of co-
accused - Aadu Khan & Ors. has been allowed by this Court on
16.05.2024 (D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence
Application (Appeal) No. 1558/2023) and the case of the appellant
is not different from that of the co-accused - Aadu Khan. He
highlighted that the only difference between the case of the
appellant and co-accused - Aadu Khan is that a Lathi was
recovered from the appellant.
4. He further submitted that even as per the prosecution case,
there is no allegation of giving Lathi blow to the deceased.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the
aforesaid facts and position of the law.
6. While allowing the application for suspension of sentence of
co-accused - Aadu Khan and Ors., this Court has observed thus:-
"7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
8. Indisputedly, the charge-sheet was filed against
12 persons including the accused while 16 persons
were named in the typed report. It is noteworthy that
all of them have been assigned same role or the other
in a seemingly free fight. But, so far as the injury
caused to the deceased - Rehmatullah and the grievous
injury caused to Habib Khan is concerned, the author of
both the injuries is Maulane Khan and Omnibus
allegations have been levelled against all including the
applicants before us.
9. On perusal of the testimony of injured witnesses
[2024:RJ-JD:23735-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-688/2024]
PW-24 (Umed Khan) and PW-25 (Ameer Khan), it
transpires that they have unequivocally assigned the
fatal injury (Rehmatullah) so also the grievous injury
(Habib Khan) to Maulane Khan; the other injuries
inflicted to remaining injured persons are neither
grievous in nature or dangerous to life. Neither any
specific allegation has been levelled against any of the
applicants nor has any recovery of the weapon affected
from them.
10. This Court is, therefore, persuaded to suspend
the sentence of the present applicants, particularly
when they remained on bail, during the trial."
7. Following the reasoning given in the case of Aadu Khan &
Ors., this application for suspension of sentence filed under
Sec.389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive
sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer
vide judgment dated 11.10.2023 in Sessions Case No.08/2018
(106/2018) against appellant-applicant Hanif Khan S/o Shri Ali
Khan shall remain suspended till final disposal of the appeal,
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 the
learned trial judge for his appearance in this court on 01.07.2024
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 appellant changes the place of residence,
he will give in writing his changed address to the trial
[2024:RJ-JD:23735-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-688/2024]
Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address, they
will give in writing their changed address to the trial
Court.
8. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-
appellant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also
be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall
not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to
pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said
accused-appellant does not appear before the trial court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
34-Payal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
