Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bagda Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:34205-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc 3rd Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 1404/2025
Bagda Ram S/o Shri Naagji Ram @ Kalaram, Aged About 43
Years, R/o Bamanwada, Tehsil And P.s. Raniwada, District Jalore
(Presently Lodged In Open Air Camp Sirohi).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. KS Bhati, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. KS Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Order
04/08/2025
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 31.01.2020 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore in
Sessions Case No.17/2015 :
Offence U/s Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of payment
of fine
302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 10 months RI
201 IPC 7 years RI Rs.7,000/- 7 months RI
498A IPC 3 years RI Rs.3,000/- 3 months RI
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred this third application
for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. (430 of
[2025:RJ-JD:34205-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1404/2025]
BNSS) for suspension of sentence 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
applicant be suspended and he 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
except certain exceptions and that none of the exceptions are
applicable in the present case.
5. 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 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:34205-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1404/2025]
7. Looking to the fact that criminal appeals pertaining to year
2008 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 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
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 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 sentence.
[2025:RJ-JD:34205-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1404/2025]
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, we are inclined to
suspend the substantive sentence of the appellant-applicant,
namely, Bagda Ram S/o Shri Naagji Ram @ Kalaram during the
pendency of the appeal.
12. Accordingly, the instant third application for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. (430 of BNSS) is allowed
and it is ordered that substantive sentence passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore vide judgment
dated 31.01.2020 in Sessions Case No.17/2015, against the
appellant-applicant, namely, Bagda Ram S/o Shri Naagji Ram @
Kalaram 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 03.09.2025 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.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they
will give in writing their changed address to the trial
court.
13. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused-
[2025:RJ-JD:34205-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1404/2025]
applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also
be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall
not been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to
pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial court. In case, the
said accused-applicant does not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
56-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
