Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Munjaram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 25 February, 2025

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur, Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:11049-DB]                   (1 of 5)                       [SOSA-657/2024]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
     D.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Suspension Of Sentence Application
                           (Appeal) No. 657/2024

Munjaram S/o Late Shri Bhiyaram @ Bhapparam, Aged About 42
Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Village Dantiwada, P.s. Dangiawas, Tehsil
Bilara, Dist. Jodhpur (Open Jail, Nagaur)
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi
                                   Mr. Naresh Singh Rajpurohit
                                   Mr. Prem Khileri
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Deepak Choudhary, PP
                                   MR. Surendra Surana for complainant



        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

25/02/2025

1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 21.11.2016 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Women Atrocities Cases),

District Jodhpur in Session Case No.107/2013:

      Offence              Sentence                                 Fine
     302 IPC        Life Imprisonment Rs.20,000/- and in default of
                                      which to further undergo five
                                      months' A.I.
     498-A IPC      3 Years' S.I.                  Rs.2,000/- and in default of
                                                   which to further undergo one
                                                   month's S.I.





 [2025:RJ-JD:11049-DB]                   (2 of 5)                    [SOSA-657/2024]

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 application

seeking suspension of sentence was dismissed on 14.09.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that the

applicant is in custody for more than eight years and other

similarly situated co-accused namely Mangilal and Sunil have been

enlarged on bail by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated

03.11.2023 and 23.02.2024 respectively. He further submits that

a coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the application for

Suspension of Sentence of the co-accused Dhanna Ram and

Chaina Ram vide orders dated 11.01.2024 and 20.03.2024

respectively. He further submits that the case of the present

applicant-appellant stands on a similar footing to the case of the

co-accused persons, namely, Mangilal, Sunil, Dhanna Ram and

Chaina Ram, who have been granted bail and the suspension of

sentence has been allowed in their cases. He, therefore, prays

that the application for suspension of sentence in case of the

present applicant-appellant may also be allowed.

4. It is submitted that the role alleged against the applicant is

not different from that of Mangilal, Sunil, Dhanna Ram and Chaina

Ram and, therefore, he is also entitled to be granted suspension of

sentence.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

complainant opposed the application and made submissions that

looking to the nature of the offence involved, wherein the

applicant has been convicted for offences under Sections 302 and

498-A of IPC, the application deserves dismissal. However, it is not

[2025:RJ-JD:11049-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-657/2024]

denied that role assigned to the applicant is not different than that

of Mangilal and Sunil, who have been ordered to be enlarged on

bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the

parties and perused the material available on record.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maniglal and Sunil

(supra), inter-alia, observed and directed as under:

In Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.13373/2023 (Mangi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan)

"Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

None appears for the respondent though notice is served.

Leave granted.

An application for suspension of sentence made by the appellant pending an appeal before the High Court has been rejected. The appellant along with others was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The appellant is the cousin of the husband of the deceased. The appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of 06 years and 11 months. Considering the fact that the appeal of the year 2017 which is not being heard and considering the role attributed to the appellant, the High Court ought to have enlarged the appellant on bail pending the appeal. Hence, a case is made out to enlarge the appellant on bail.

We direct that the appellant shall be produced before the Trial Court within a period of one week from today. The Trial Court shall enlarge the appellant on bail on appropriate terms and conditions, pending final disposal of the appeal before the High Court.

The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed."

In Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.727/2024 (Sunil Vs.

State of Rajasthan) "1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of about seven years and two months.

3. The appeal against conviction is of the year 2023, which is not likely to be heard in near future. There are no antecedents reported. Hence, the appellant is entitled to suspension of sentence and bail, pending the appeal before the High Court.

4. The appellant shall be produced before the Trial Court within a period of one week from today.

[2025:RJ-JD:11049-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-657/2024]

5. The Trial Court shall enlarge the appellant on bail on appropriate terms the conditions till the final disposal of the appeal before the High Court.

6. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

8. In view of the fact that the role assigned to the applicant is

apparently similar to that of Mangilal and Sunil, inasmuch as

allegation against Mangilal and Sunil was that of holding the hairs

of the deceased and that against the applicant is that of holding

hand of the deceased and the applicant has also undergone

sentence of more than eight years, we are inclined to suspend the

substantive sentence of the appellant-applicant- Munjaram S/o

Late Shri Bhiyaram @ Bhapparam during the pendency of the

appeal.

9. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of

sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is

ordered that the substantive sentence dated 21.11.2016 passed

by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Women Atrocities Cases),

Jodhpur Metropolitan in Session Case No.107/2013 against

applicant- Munjaram S/o Late Shri Bhiyaram @ Bhapparam, 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 25.03.2025 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 their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

[2025:RJ-JD:11049-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-657/2024]

3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s) they will give in writing their changed address to the trial court.

10. 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.