Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Puran Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 23 April, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:19686-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                   No. 325/2025

Puran Singh S/o Prithavi Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Negadiya Police Station Delwara District Rajsamand (Raj.)
(Lodged In District Jail Udaipur )
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                       ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. JVS Deora
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. CS Ojha, PP



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

23/04/2025

1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 24.10.2016 passed by

the learned Additional Session Judge, Nathdwara, District

Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.05/2015:

      Offence               Sentence                                  Fine
302 IPC                Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- and in default of
                                         which to further undergo six
                                         months' R.I.

2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for

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

suspension of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and

for release on bail.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that this

is a case where the complainant received a phone call informing

[2025:RJ-JD:19686-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-325/2025]

him that his daughter was not well. Upon arriving at his village

Negadia, he found that his daughter was dead, with some marks

on her neck and an injury on her nose. The grandchildren of the

complainant told him that their father had killed their mother.

3.1 Learned counsel further submits that though the merits of

the case warrant intervention, but he is restricting his arguments

to the prolonged period of incarceration endured by the appellant

i.e. more than 10 years.

4. The plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-

applicant is that the applicant has undergone a prolonged actual

custody of 10 years, 06 months and 22 days and 13 years, 02

months and 25 days with remission 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.

4.1. 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.

[2025:RJ-JD:19686-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-325/2025]

However, he has not denied that the applicant has already

undergone a total sentence of 10 years during trial and after

sentence.

5.1 A custody certificate furnished by learned Public Prosecutor is

taken on record.

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 pertaining to year

2016 also are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing

of the present appeal in near future.

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

[2025:RJ-JD:19686-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-325/2025]

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.

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 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 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is

ordered that substantive sentence passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, in Session Case

[2025:RJ-JD:19686-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-325/2025]

No.05/2015 against the appellant-applicant Puran Singh S/o

Prithvi Singh, 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/- each with two

sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial

Judge for their appearance in this court on 26.05.2025 and

whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal 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 change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.