Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Magni Ram @ Manna vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 28 August, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:38451-DB]                   (1 of 5)                      [SOSA-1399/2024]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                 No. 1399/2024

Ratan Lal @ Bhupendra S/o Sh. Hamera, Aged About 38 Years,
Gehuo Ka Kuwa, Jawad, Ghasa P.s., Dist. Udaipur, At Present R/o
Govind Nagar, Housing Board, Dhoinda, Kankroli Police Station,
Rajsamand, Dist. Rajsamand. (Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur).
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                    ----Respondent
                                 Connected With
 D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                  No. 535/2023
1. Magni Ram @ Manna S/o Shri Veni Ram, Aged About 35
Years, Veerwaliya Ka Kuwa, Jawad, Ghasa P.s., Udaipur, Dist.
Udaipur. (Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur).
2. Udai Lal S/o Shri Veni Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Veerwaliya
Ka Kuwa, Jawad, Ghasa P.s., Udaipur, Dist. Udaipur. (Lodged In
Central Jail, Udaipur).
                                                                      ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Lalita W/o Nana Lal, R/o Housing Board Colony Govind Nagar
Kankroli Ps Dist. Rajsamand
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Dinesh Chandra Mali
                                   Mr. Jagatveer Singh Deora
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. CS Ojha, PP


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order

28/08/2025

[2025:RJ-JD:38451-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1399/2024]

1. The appellants-applicants herein has been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 06.05.2022 &

09.05.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act Cases,

District Rajsamand, in Sessions Case No.13/2019:

     Offence               Sentence                                 Fine
302/120-B IPC         Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- and in default of
                                        which to further undergo six
                                        months' S.I.
201 IPC               07 Years S.I.                Rs.5,000/- and in default of
                                                   which to further undergo
                                                   three months' S.I.
 Appellant - Ratan Lal
3(2)(va)            of Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- and in default of
SC/ST Act                                which to further undergo
                                         Three month S.I.

2. The appellants-applicants have preferred applications for

suspension of sentence under Section 430 of B.N.S.S, 2023 during

the pendency of the appeal and for release on bail.

3. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-

applicant is that as the applicant is in custody for more than 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

applicants be suspended and they be enlarged on bail.

4. 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:38451-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1399/2024]

except certain exceptions and that none of the exceptions are

applicable in the present case.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the applications for

suspension of sentence. However, he has not denied that the

appellants-applicants have already undergone sentence of more

than 10 years during trial and after sentence.

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 appeals pertaining to year

2008 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 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."

9. 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

[2025:RJ-JD:38451-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1399/2024]

appeals were pending at the High Court stage with exceptions

indicated therein.

10. In the present case as observed herein-before, the

appellants-applicants have 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

appellants-applicants were involved in offence leading to their

conviction for life, nothing has been brought on record by way of

extenuating circumstances for denial of suspension of sentence.

11. 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 and only on

account of the fact that more than 10 years' sentence has already

been undergone by the appellants-applicants, we are inclined to

suspend the substantive sentence of the appellants-applicants,

namely, (1) Ratan Lal @ Bhupendra S/o Sh. Hamera, (2)

Magni Ram @ Manna S/o Shri Veni Ram & (3) Udai Lal S/o

Shri Veni Ram, during the pendency of the appeal.

12. Accordingly, the instant applications for suspension of

sentence filed under Section 430 BNSS are allowed and it is

ordered that substantive sentence passed by learned learned

Special Judge SC/ST Act Cases, District Rajsamand, in Session

Case No.13/2019 against the appellants-applicants, namely, (1)

Ratan Lal @ Bhupendra S/o Sh. Hamera, (2) Magni Ram @

Manna S/o Shri Veni Ram & (3) Udai Lal S/o Shri Veni Ram,

shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal

and they shall be released on bail, provided they execute a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of

[2025:RJ-JD:38451-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1399/2024]

Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for their

appearance in this court on 03.10.2025 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.