Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhupendra Rankawat @ Bhanu vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 22 January, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:4238-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 483/2024
IN
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.100/2024
Bhupendra Rankawat @ Bhanu son of Shri Surendra, aged about
28 years, resident of 6, Amrit Vihar Nagar, Police Station
Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur. (presently lodged in Central
Jail, Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi.
Mr. Ramprakash Dudi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Gurjar, GA-cum-AAG assisted
by Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, AAAG.
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Gokulesh Bohra for Mr. Neelkanth
Bohra.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
22/01/2025
This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the
convict-appellant, namely, Bhupendra Rankawat @ Bhanu who has
been convicted in Sessions Case No.84/2017 (N.C.V. No.84/2017)
for committing the offences under sections 302/120B and 201/34
of the Indian Penal Code.
2. In Sessions Case No.84/2017, Pawan Kumar, Bhupendra
Rankawat, Hemant Upadhyay and Sultan Khan were convicted for
committing various offences under the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case against the accused persons is based
on circumstantial evidence and, in particular, last seen together
[2025:RJ-JD:4238-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-483/2024]
evidence. In the trial, the prosecution examined 34 witnesses out
of whom P.W.1-Teja Ram, P.W.5-Ramesh Mundra, P.W.6-Dinesh
Bhati, P.W.11-Tarun Kumar, P.W.24-Pankaj are projected as the
witnesses to last seen together theory. This is the case of the
prosecution that at the instance of Bhupendra Rankawat a cotton
strap used for weaving cot was recovered. This is also the
prosecution story that Bhupendra Rankawat was seen in the
company of the deceased Pramod Rao at various places on 22 nd
January 2017. Mr. N.K. Gurjar, the learned Additional Advocate
General has indicated that there were other evidences such as
CDRs, clothes, etc. and that would connect Bhupendra Rankawat
with the crime.
4. Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi, the learned counsel for the convict-
applicant, namely, Bhupendra Rankawat has raised manifold
contentions and, in particular, (i) Bhupendra Rankawat was not
named in the First Information Report, and, (ii) the chain of
circumstances is not complete.
5. Mr. N.K. Gurjar, the learned Additional Advocate General has
vehemently opposed this application for the suspension of
sentence primarily on the ground that after the conviction of the
accused the presumption of innocence dilutes and unless there is
substantial error in the judgment under challenge the accused
should not be enlarged on bail.
6. Mr. Gokulesh Bohra, the learned counsel for the complainant
has also opposed this application for suspension of sentence
referring to the findings recorded by Additional District and
Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan.
[2025:RJ-JD:4238-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-483/2024]
7. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, this is the duty
of the prosecution to produce cogent and clinching evidence as to
the circumstances sought to be proved against the accused. This
is also necessary for the prosecution to demonstrate that the
chain of circumstances is so complete and every possibility of
innocence of the accused has been ruled out.
8. There was evidence of P.W.1-Teja Ram that for some time
Bhupendra was not seen in the company of the deceased Pramod
Rao and he was not with him at least when he was being taken for
burial. On such evidence, we find that there is a prima facie case
made out by Bhupendra Rankawat @ Bhanu that the chain of
circumstances was broken. Quite apparently, the law on the
subject attaches a different rigor to accept the evidence tendered
by the prosecution.
9. Therefore, D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence
Application (Appeal) No.483 of 2024 filed in D.B. Criminal Appeal
No.100 of 2024 is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive
sentence awarded to the convict, namely, Bhupendra Rankawat in
Sessions Case No.84 of 2017 shall remain suspended during
pendency of the D.B. Criminal Appeal No.100 of 2024 and he shall
be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the
satisfaction of learned trial Judge. He shall appear in this Court on
24th February 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 changes 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:4238-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-483/2024]
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 convict-applicant does not appear before the trial Court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J
83-/Devesh/Surabhi-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
