Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kishan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 July, 2025
Bench: Dinesh Mehta, Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JD:28919-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc II Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 884/2023
Kishan Singh S/o Sh. Babu Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Torana Village, Teh Abu Parvat, Dist Sirohi.
(At Present Lodged At Dist. Jail, Sirohi)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikander Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh, AAAG for
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
(In Court at Jodhpur)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
(Through VC from Jaipur)
Order
04/07/2025
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 31.05.2018 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Abu Road, District
Sirohi in Session Case No. 66/2016 (35/2015).
S.No Offence Sentence Fine
1. 302 IPC Life imprisonment Rs. 5000/- and in default of
which to further undergo
additional six months
additional S.I.
2. 4/25 1 year S.I. Rs. 1000/- and in default of
Arms which to further undergo one
Act month additional S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:28919-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-884/2023]
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the present second
application for suspension of sentence under section 389 Cr.P.C.
for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal and
for release on bail.
3. The first application for suspension of sentence (D.B.
Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No.615/2021) was dismissed by this Court vide order dated
10.11.2021.
4. Mr. Sikander Khan, learned counsel for the appellant-
applicant submits that the appellant-applicant has preferred the
present application on the solitary ground that he has already
undergone sentence of 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. Mr. Kuldeep Singh, on behalf of Mr. Deepak Choudhary,
learned Additional Advocate General opposed the application for
[2025:RJ-JD:28919-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-884/2023]
suspension of sentence by contending that the appellant-applicant
has committed heinous offence and suspension of sentence of
such offender would send adverse message in the society.
However, he has not denied the fact that the appellant-applicant
has already undergone sentence of more than 10 years during
trial and upon conviction.
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."
[2025:RJ-JD:28919-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-884/2023]
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 the appeal being
heard in the near future. Except for the fact that the appellant-
applicant was involved in offences 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, Kishan Singh S/o Sh. Babu Singh 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 Sessions Judge No.2, Abu Road, District Sirohi in
Session Case No. 66/2016 (35/2015) against the appellant-
applicant, namely, Kishan Singh S/o Sh. Babu 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/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- to the
satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court
[2025:RJ-JD:28919-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-884/2023]
on 04.08.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of
the appeal on the conditions indicated below:
1. 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)
they 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 does not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
D.B.-1-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
