Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vikas Pandit vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 May, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:25147]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
  S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                   No. 1438/2023

                                             In

                     S.B. Criminal appeal No.2338/2023

  Jaipal Bhadu S/o Shrichand Bhadu, Aged About 36 Years, R/o-
  Manniwali, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sriganganagar (Raj.).
  (Presently Lodged In District Jail, Sriganganagar).
                                                                             ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
  State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                           ----Respondent


                                   Connected With
        S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application
                              (Appeal) No. 1525/2023

                                             In

                S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2457/2023

   Sandeep Meghwal S/o Shri Jasraj, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
   Manniwali,        Tehsil     Sadul       Shahar,         Dist.      Sriganganagar,
   Rajasthan. (Lodged In Jail Sriganganagar).
                                                                            ----Appellant
                                         Versus
   1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
   2.      Brij Lal S/o Unknown, R/o Manniwali, Sadul Shahar,
           Dist. Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Respondents
        S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application
                              (Appeal) No. 180/2024

                                             In

                S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 217/2024
   Vikas Pandit S/o Shri Moolchand, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
   Manniwali,        Tehsil    Sadul      Shahar,        Dist.       Sri    Ganganagar,
   Rajasthan (Lodged In Jail Shri Ganganagar)


                         (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:37:58 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JD:25147]                     (2 of 6)                          [SOSA-1438/2023]



                                                                         ----Appellant
                                       Versus
     1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
     2.       Brij Lal S/o Unknown, R/o Manniwali, Sadul Shahar,
              Dist. Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Respondents


  For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. N.K. Sharma
                                   Mr. Dugresh Sharma
                                   Ms. Sapna Vaishnav
  For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA



                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

29/05/2024

1. The instant applications for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicants in the matter of judgment dated

20.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.21/2021

whereby they were convicted and sentenced as under:-

Name of the Offence for Substantive Fine and default accused which sentence sentence convicted

1.Jaipal Bhadu Section 341 - Fine of Rs.500/- and

2.Sandeep r.w. Section in default of payment Meghwal 34 of the IPC of fine, additional of 7

3.Vikas Pandit days S.I. Section 323 - Six months RI r.w. Section 34 of the IPC Section 326 5 years RI Fine of Rs.5,000/- and r.w. Section in default of payment 34 of the IPC of fine, additional of 3 months R.I. Section 307 10 years RI Fine of Rs.50,000/-

                     r.w.    Section                               and in default of
                     34 of the IPC                                 payment     of  fine,
                                                                   additional   of  one
                                                                   year's R.I.




 [2024:RJ-JD:25147]                      (3 of 6)                          [SOSA-1438/2023]

2. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the learned

trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal and factual

aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous

conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be

appreciated again by this court being the first appellate Court.

They submit that applicants are behind the bars around five years.

Reliance has been placed on the Petition(s) for Special Leave to

Appeal (Crl.) No(s) 2893/21 titled Manohar Lal Ainani Vs. State

of Rajasthan & Anr., wherein it was held vide order dated

15.11.2021 that looking to the prolonged custody period of the

petitioner, bail shall be granted to him in that matter. In another

landmark judgment of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central

Bureau of Investigation and Ors. reported in AIR 2022 SC

3386, the aforesaid aspect has been reiterated. Hearing of the

appeals are likely to take long time, therefore, the application for

suspension of sentence may be granted.

3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused-applicants for

releasing the appellants on applications for suspension of

sentence.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

5. It is emanating from the record that there is a strong

arguable case in favour of the applicants as to whether the

appellants were having an intent to kill the victim or it was a

simple scuffle only. The victim party sustained injuries; the crucial

[2024:RJ-JD:25147] (4 of 6) [SOSA-1438/2023]

question whether the appellants made an attempt to kill the victim

shall be adjudicated after making further appreciation of the

evidence while hearing the appeals on merit, but there seems no

hope for hearing the appeal on merits in near future.

6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has propounded guidelines on

the subject of bail in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra)

and has held as under:-

"41. Sub-section (2) has to be read along with Sub-section (1). The proviso to Sub-section (2) restricts the period of remand to a maximum of 15 days at a time. The second proviso prohibits an adjournment when the witnesses are in attendance except for special reasons, which are to be recorded. Certain reasons for seeking adjournment are held to be permissible. One must read this provision from the point of view of the dispensation of justice. After all, right to a fair and speedy trial is yet another facet of Article 21. Therefore, while it is expected of the court to comply with Section 309 of the Code to the extent possible, an unexplained, avoidable and prolonged delay in concluding a trial, appeal or revision would certainly be a factor for the consideration of bail. This we hold so notwithstanding the beneficial provision Under Section 436A of the Code which stands on a different footing.

42. ......

43. A suspension of sentence is an act of keeping the sentence in abeyance, pending the final adjudication. Though delay in taking up the main appeal would certainly be a factor and the benefit available Under Section 436A would also be considered, the Courts will have to see the relevant factors including the conviction rendered by the trial court. When it is so apparent that the appeals are not likely to be taken up and disposed of, then the delay would certainly be a factor in favour of the Appellant.

44. Thus, we hold that the delay in taking up the main appeal or revision coupled with the benefit conferred Under Section 436A of the Code among other factors ought to be considered for a favourable release on bail."

(Emphasis Supplied)

7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case

and looking to the fact that as some of the questions raised by the

learned counsel for the appellants deserves to be appreciated

again and if the same will be decided in their favour, they may get

acquittal; they were on bail during trial they have served the

sentence for around a year and looking to voluminous pendency of

[2024:RJ-JD:25147] (5 of 6) [SOSA-1438/2023]

the cases, there is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal on merits

in near future, thus, while refraining from passing any comments

on the niceties of the matter, this court is of the opinion that it is a

fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused

appellants.

8. Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence filed

under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the

impugned order of sentence dated 20.10.2023 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sadulshahar, District Sri

Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.21/2021 against the appellant-

applicants (1) Jaipal Bhadu S/o Shrichand Bhadu, (2)

Sandeep Meghwal S/o Shri Jasraj and (3)Vikas Pandit S/o

Shri Moolchand shall remain suspended till final disposal of the

aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail provided each

of them 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 their appearance in this court on 03.07.2024 and

whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeals on the

conditions indicated below:-

(1) That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

(2) That if the applicants changes the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed addresses to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.