Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shyamlal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 August, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:34332-DB]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR


     D.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Suspension of Sentence Application
                          (Appeal) No. 1054/2025

Shyamlal S/o Shankarlal Daroga, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Sardar Ji Ka Kheda, Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara (Rajasthan).
(Presently Confined In Central Jail, Udaipur)
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. JVS Deora
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Ramesh Devasi, PP



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order

04/08/2025

1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 25.08.2021 passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Begun, District Chittorgarh in

Sessions Case No.29/2015 :

      Offence               Sentence                                Fine
     302/34 IPC     Life Imprisonment            Rs.25,000/- and in default of
                                                 which to further undergo one
                                                 year's S.I.
     394/34 IPC     Ten years' S.I.              Rs.15,000/- and in default of
                                                 which to further undergo nine
                                                 months' S.I.

2. The appellant-applicant has preferred this second application

for suspension of sentence under Section 430 of the Bhartiya

[2025:RJ-JD:34332-DB] (2 of 6) [SOSA-1054/2025]

Nyayik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for suspension of sentences

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

3. Mr. J.V.S. Deora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant-applicant, submits that previous antecedent against the

appellant-applicant is pertaining to offence under Section 379 IPC.

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.

3.2 The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-

applicant is that as the applicant has already undergone the

custody of 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 applicant be suspended and he be enlarged on bail.

3.3 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.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor though opposes the application for

suspension of sentence with the submission that as the appellant-

[2025:RJ-JD:34332-DB] (3 of 6) [SOSA-1054/2025]

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 the custody of more than 10 years during trial

and after sentence.

5. We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on

record.

6. Looking to the fact that criminal appeal is pertaining to year

2021 and is pending at the stage of hearing and that there is no

likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future.

7. 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."

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

[2025:RJ-JD:34332-DB] (4 of 6) [SOSA-1054/2025]

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

appeals were pending at the High Court stage with exceptions

indicated therein.

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

applicant has already undergone sentence of more than 10 years,

and apparently, there are no chances of hearing of the 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 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 only on account of

the fact that more than 10 years' sentence has already been

undergone by the appellant-applicant, this Court deems it

appropriate to suspend the substantive sentence of the appellant-

applicant during the pendency of the appeal.

[2025:RJ-JD:34332-DB] (5 of 6) [SOSA-1054/2025]

12. Accordingly, the instant second application for suspension of

sentences filed under Section 430 of the Bhartiya Nyayik Suraksha

Sanhita (BNSS) is allowed and it is ordered that substantive

sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Begun,

Disrict Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.29/2015 against the

appellant-applicant Shyamlal S/o Shankarlal Daroga shall

remain suspended till final disposal of the 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 08.09.2025 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 change 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.