Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kalpesh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 July, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:28876-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 963/2025
Kalpesh S/o Shri Mangi Lal, Aged About 25 Years, Kalpesh Son
Of Shri Mangi Lal Manat, By Caste Meena, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of Gessu Ka Vaga, Ramsagra Police Station, District
Dungarpur. ( Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagatveer Singh Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
Mr. Manish Pitaliya
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
04/07/2025
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 17.11.2018 passed by
the learned Additional Session Judge, No.2, Udaipur in Sessions
Case No.28/2015(314/2015) :
Offence Sentence Fine
302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.2,000/-
201 IPC 07 years R.I. Rs.10,000/-
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:28876-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-963/2025]
3. The matter pertains to an FIR lodged on 15.06.2015 by the
complainant, alleging that his niece, who was residing with them
and was a student at Sinji Institute of Nursing, Debari, was found
murdered. The present accused is suspected to be involved in the
said offence.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, without delving into the
merits of the case, confines his submission to the limited ground
that the petitioner deserves to be released, as he has already
undergone more than 10 years of actual incarceration 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.
5. 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 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.
6. Learned Government Counsel opposes the prayer but is
unable to affirm that the petitioner has not undergone more than
10 years of actual custody. He is also unable to furnish any
explanation for the prolonged custody or refer to any material
justifying the same.
[2025:RJ-JD:28876-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-963/2025]
7. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on
record.
8. Looking to the fact that criminal appeals pertaining to year
2018 also are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing
of the present appeal in near future.
9. 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. "
10. 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 appeal is not in proximity of
hearing with no extenuating circumstances should be
enlarged on bail."
[2025:RJ-JD:28876-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-963/2025]
11. 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.
12. In the present case as observed herein-before, the appellant-
applicant has already undergone sentence for 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 appellant-
applicant 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 sentences.
13. 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' sentences has
already been undergone by the appellant-applicant, we are
inclined to suspend the substantive sentences of the appellant-
applicant during the pendency of the appeal.
14. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of
sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
ordered that substantive sentence passed by learned Additional
Session Judge, No.2, Udaipur in Sessions Case
No.28/2015(314/2015) against the appellant-applicant Kalpesh
S/o Shri Mangi Lal 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
[2025:RJ-JD:28876-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-963/2025]
Judge for his appearance in this Court on 04.08.2025 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.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s)
they will give in writing their changed address to the
trial court.
15. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicants 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.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
Ashutosh/AbhishekK-38
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
