Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mithlesh Alias Kari vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 28 April, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:20462-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                 No. 1224/2024

Mithlesh Alias Kari S/o Siya Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kopa
P.s. Sonbarsa, District Saharsa (Bihar) (At Present Lodged In
District Jail, Churu)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Ms. Manjula Choudhary
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

28/04/2025

1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 06.02.2018 passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No.24/2015 :

Offences Prison Punishment In default of payment U/s of fine further undergo 302 of IPC Imprisonment for -

Life with the fine of Rupees 2000/-(Two thousand) 308 of IPC Simple Further 3 (Three) Months Imprisonment for 3 of Simple Imprisonment (Three) Years with the fine of Rupees 10,000/- (Ten thousand) 323 of IPC Simple Imprionment -

for 6 (six) months

[2025:RJ-JD:20462-DB] (2 of 6) [SOSA-1224/2024]

2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for

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

of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and for release on

bail.

3. Brief facts of this case are that the incident had happened on

27.04.2015, and due to some small altercation pertaining to

Rs.100/-, a single blow by rod was inflicted by the present

accused on the deceased.

3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant 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 only plea raised by learned counsel for the

appellant-applicant is that as the applicant has already undergone

sentence of 11 years, 10 months and 21 days with remission as

on 11.02.2025 (actual custody period 10 years) 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

[2025:RJ-JD:20462-DB] (3 of 6) [SOSA-1224/2024]

except certain exceptions and that none of the exceptions are

applicable in the present case.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General 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. However, he has not denied that the appellant-applicant

has already undergone sentence of 11 years, 10 months and 21

days with remission as on 11.02.2025 during trial and after

sentence.

8. We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on

record.

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

2024 also are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing

of the present appeal in near future.

10. 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. "

[2025:RJ-JD:20462-DB] (4 of 6) [SOSA-1224/2024]

11. 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."

12. 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.

13. In the present case as observed herein-before, the appellant-

applicant has already undergone sentence for 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.

14. 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 10 years' sentences has already been undergone by

[2025:RJ-JD:20462-DB] (5 of 6) [SOSA-1224/2024]

the appellant-applicant, we are inclined to suspend the

substantive sentences of the appellant-applicant during the

pendency of the appeal.

15. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of

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

ordered that substantive sentence passed by learned Sessions

Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No.24/2015 against the appellant-

applicant, Mithlesh Alias Kari S/o Siya Ram 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 28.05.2025 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.