Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinay Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 August, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:36242-DB] (1 of 5) [SOSA-693/2024]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc 3rd Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 693/2024
Vinay Kumar S/o Sajjan Singh, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Jat,
R/o Hansi, District Hisar, Haryana.
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas,
Mr. Gaurav Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
Order
13/08/2025
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 19.11.2018 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu,
in Session Case No.17/2015:
Offence Sentence Fine
302/120-B of Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- and in default of
the IPC which further to undergo 06
Months' S.I.
435/120-B of 07 Years R.I. Rs.2000/- and in default of
the IPC which further to undergo 02
months S.I.
201/120-B of 03 Years R.I. Rs.1,000/- and in default of
the IPC which further to undergo one
month's S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:36242-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-693/2024]
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. during the
pendency of the appeal and for release on bail. Earlier second
application seeking suspension of sentence was dismissed on
19.01.2021.
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 Public Prosecutor opposed the application for
suspension of sentence. 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:36242-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-693/2024]
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
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:36242-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-693/2024]
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 appellant-applicant, we are inclined to
suspend the substantive sentence of the appellant-applicant,
namely, Vinay Kumar S/o Sajjan Singh, during the pendency of
the appeal.
12. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
ordered that substantive sentence passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu, in Session Case
No.17/2015 against the appellant-applicant, namely, Vinay
Kumar S/o. Sajjan 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/- (out of which one surety will
be of local) each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his
appearance in this court on 15.09.2025 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 his address(s) he 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
[2025:RJ-JD:36242-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-693/2024]
Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused-
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 do not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
1-AnilSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
