Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shanker Singh And Ors vs State on 8 October, 2024

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2024:RJ-JD:41258-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
     D.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application
                      (Appeal) No. 924/2024
                                           In
                  D.B. Criminal Appeal No.105/2020

Kanti Lal S/o Shri Nathu Meena, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Village Baluya-Fala-Agrat, P.S. Sarada, Dist. Udaipur, Raj.
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG


     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 08/10/2024

1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 18.02.2020 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kherwara, District Udaipur

in Sessions Case No.144/2016:

     Offence               Sentence                                 Fine
302 IPC             Life Imprisonment Rs.20,000/-,     in    default
                                      thereof to further undergo
                                      one year's additional S.I.

2.    The   appellant-applicant            has     preferred        the    present   2 nd

application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence

during the pendency of the appeal and for release on bail.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.10.2013, complainant -

Bheemraj Meena lodged a report stating therein that his brother

Lalu Ram, residing at Kanuwara Pagliya Ji, Rishabhdev along with

[2024:RJ-JD:41258-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-924/2024]

his family and he was working in a Government school. On

17.10.2013 at about 10:00 p.m. in night complainant received an

information that his brother has expired in a hospital. He alleged

that when he went to see Lalu Ram, his throat was slit by

unknown persons by using a sharp-edged weapon. The trial was

commenced and the learned Trial Court has convicted the

applicant-accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and

sentenced him with life imprisonment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant without going

into the merits of the case raised a plea that as the applicant has

already undergone sentence of 10 years 11 months and 14 days

because he is in custody since 25.10.2013 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.

5. 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.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the

application for suspension of sentence on merits and submitted

that as the appellant-applicant has committed heinous offence,

[2024:RJ-JD:41258-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-924/2024]

suspension of sentence of such offender would send adverse

message in the society. However, he has not denied the fact that

the appellant-applicant has already undergone sentence of 10

years 11 months and 14 days because he is in custody since

25.10.2013.

7. We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on

record.

8. Looking to the fact that criminal appeal pertaining to year

2013 is also pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing

of the present appeal in near future.

9. 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. "

10. 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

[2024:RJ-JD:41258-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-924/2024]

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."

11. 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.

12. 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 offence leading to his conviction for life,

nothing has been brought on record by way of extenuating

circumstances for denial of suspension of sentences.

13. 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.

14. Accordingly, the instant 2nd application for suspension of

sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is

ordered that substantive sentence passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Kherwara, District Udaipur in Sessions Case

No.144/2016 against the appellant-applicant Kanti Lal S/o Shri

[2024:RJ-JD:41258-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-924/2024]

Nathu Meena 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 08.11.2024 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 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.