Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mukesh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 23 January, 2025

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Sameer Jain

[2025:RJ-JD:4461-DB]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                              JODHPUR
      D.B. Criminal Misc. II Suspension Of Sentence Application
                       (Appeal) No.1046/2023
                                           In
                   D.B. Criminal Appeal No.223/2018

Mukesh S/o Gattu Rot, Aged About 20 Years, B/c Rot Meena, R/o
Phari Khaturat, Dhambola Police Station, Dist. Udaipur. Raj.
(Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
                                                  ----Applicant
                              Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                               ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr. Veer Bahadur Singh for
                                   Mr. JVS Deora
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP


      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order

23/01/2025

1. The applicant-appellant herein has been convicted under

Section 302 IPC and sentenced with imprisonment for life with a

fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo

further six months' R.I., vide judgment dated 26.09.2018 passed

by learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Sessions Case

No.24/2015 (C.I.S. No.30/2015).

2. The applicant-appellant has preferred this second application

for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for

suspension of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and

for release on bail.

3. First application for suspension of sentence of the applicant

was dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2021 passed by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension

of sentence Application (Appeal) No.573/2021.

[2025:RJ-JD:4461-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1046/2023]

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

allegation is that on 14.10.2014, Reena (deceased), who was

admitted to burn ward at General Hospital, Dungarpur, stated that

she studies in 12th class and was having a love affair with Mukesh

(applicant) since 10th class and while calling her on some pretext,

he lit the fire over her clothes with a matchbox.

4.1 The only plea raised by learned counsel for the applicant-

appellant is that as the applicant has already undergone the

custody of 10 years, 02 months & 21 days 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.

4.2. 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 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court 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 opposes the application for

suspension of sentence but is unable to show anything, which

could bring the matter out of the realm of the judgment rendered

in Saudan Singh (supra).

[2025:RJ-JD:4461-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1046/2023]

6. We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on

record.

7. Looking to the fact that criminal appeal is pertaining to year

2018 and is pending at the stage of hearing and that there is no

likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh

(supra) observed an exception, which could be a broad guideline,

which reads as follows :-

"1. Heinous nature of crime :

(a) Prohibited categories : To ensure public peace and the well-being of the society, life convicts who are hardened criminals, repeat offenders, kidnappers, in crimes related to massacre (three or more than three murders), habitual criminals, and fall in prohibited categories as per the U.P. Jail Standing Policy-

no bail should be granted."

9. 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

[2025:RJ-JD:4461-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1046/2023]

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.

11. In the present case as observed herein-before, the appellant-

applicant has already undergone sentence of 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 applicant-

appellant 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.

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 only on account of

the fact that more than 10 years' sentence has already been

undergone by the applicant-appellant, this Court deems it

appropriate to suspend the substantive sentence of the appellant-

applicant during the pendency of the appeal.

13. Accordingly, this second application for suspension of

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

ordered that substantive sentence passed by passed by learned

Sessions Judge, Dungarpur vide judgment dated 26.09.2018 in

Sessions Case No.24/2015 against the appellant-applicant

Mukesh S/o Gattu Rot shall remain suspended till final disposal

[2025:RJ-JD:4461-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1046/2023]

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 24.02.2025 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.