Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hameera vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 5 February, 2025
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur, Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JD:7224-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc II Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 49/2024
Hameera S/o Fulla Pargi, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Pargi Meena,
R/o Mandwal, P.s. Kotada, Dist. Udaipur (Raj.).
(Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JVS Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN (Through VC)
Order
05/02/2025
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 13.09.2019 passed by
the learned Additional Session Judge No.3, Udaipur in Sessions
Case No.27/2016 :
Offence Sentence Fine
447 IPC 03 months SI Rs.500/- in default of payment
of fine, further undergo 5 days
Addl.S.I.
302/34 Life Imprisonment Rs.50,000/- in default of
IPC payment of fine, further
undergo 10 months Addl.S.I.-
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently
2. The first application for suspension of sentence filed by the
applicant-appellant was dismissed vide order dated 10.11.2021.
[2025:RJ-JD:7224-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-49/2024]
3. The appellant-applicant has preferred this second application
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence during
the pendency of the appeal and for release on bail on the ground
that petitioner has remained in custody for more than 10 years.
4. The appellant-applicant has preferred the present application
on the solitary ground that he has remained in custody for more
than 10 years and there is no likelihood of appeal being taken up
for hearing in near future. Relying upon the directions of Hon'ble
The Supreme Court dated 15.09.2022 in Sonadhar v. The State
of Chhattisgarh : SLP (Crl.) No.529/2021, learned counsel
prayed that the sentence of the applicant be suspended and he be
enlarged on bail.
5. Learned counsel argued that no reasons and / or aggravating
circumstances exist for denial of bail to the applicant while placing
reliance on the order dated 05.10.2021 of Hon'ble The Supreme
Court in Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh : SLP
(Crl.) No.4633/2021. He read the relevant part/observations
made therein and submitted that the High Court should grant bail
if the accused has served more than 10 years' sentence, except
certain circumstances, and that none of the exceptions are
applicable in the present case.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor 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 over 10 years during trial and after
sentence.
[2025:RJ-JD:7224-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-49/2024]
7. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on
record.
8. It is to be noted that long list of criminal appeals even filed
in the year 2008 are pending hearing; there is no possibility that
the present appeal can be taken up for hearing in near future.
9. Hon'ble The 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."
10. 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:7224-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-49/2024]
11. In the present case as observed herein-before, the appellant-
applicant has already undergone sentence for over 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 aggravating circumstances for
denial of suspension of sentence.
12. 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, Hameera S/o Fulla Pargi, who has served the
sentence of more than 10 years during trial and upon conviction,
during the pendency of the appeal.
13. Accordingly, the instant second application for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the learned
Additional Session Judge No.3, Udaipur in Sessions Case
No.27/2016 vide judgment dated 13.09.2019, against the
appellant-applicant, namely, Hameera S/o Fulla Pargi, 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 his appearance in
this court on 05.03.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:
[2025:RJ-JD:7224-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-49/2024]
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.
14. 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-
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.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
1-SanjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
