Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Khemraj vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 March, 2025
Bench: Dinesh Mehta, Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:12118-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc III Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 280/2025
Khemraj S/o Gautam, Aged About 34 Years, Adopted Son Of
Bhaga @ Bhagwana Meena Resident Of Mamdev Pathar,
Padakhora, Dhamotar Police Station, District Pratapgarh
(Rajasthan).
(Presently Confined In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Bishnoi for
Mr. J.V.S. Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chowdhary, AAG cum
Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
04/03/2025
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 21.11.2016, passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh District Pratapgarh in
Session Case No.61/2015 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Khemraj):
S.No Offence Sentence Fine
1. 302 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.2,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo six
months S.I.
2. 201 IPC 3 years' Rigorous Rs.500/- and in default of
Imprisonment which to further undergo six
months S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:12118-DB] (2 of 6) [SOSA-280/2025]
3. 397 IPC 7 years' Rigorous Rs.2,000/- and in default of
Imprisonment which to further undergo six
months S.I.
2. The first application for suspension of sentence filed by the
applicant-appellant was dismissed as being devoid of merit by this
Court vide order dated 02.04.2019 passed in D.B. Criminal Misc.
Ist Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.337/2019.
3. The second application for suspension of sentence filed by
the applicant-appellant was dismissed as not pressed by this Court
vide order dated 20.03.2024 passed in D.B. Criminal Misc. II nd
Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.11/2023.
4. The appellant-applicant has preferred the present third
application for suspension of sentence under section 430 of the
Bhartiya Nyayik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (Old provision section
389 of the Cr.P.C.) for suspension of sentence during the pendency
of the appeal and for release on bail.
5. 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 given vide order dated 15.09.2022 in
Sonadhar v. The State of Chhattisgarh : SLP (Crl.)
No.529/2021, learned counsel prayed that the sentence of the
appellant-applicant be suspended and he be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned counsel argued that no reasons and/or aggravating
circumstances exist for denial of bail to the appellant-applicant
[2025:RJ-JD:12118-DB] (3 of 6) [SOSA-280/2025]
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.
7. Learned Additional Advocate General cum Public Prosecutor
opposed the application for suspension of sentence by contending
that the appellant - applicant has committed heinous offences,
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.
8. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on
record.
9. 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.
10. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:12118-DB] (4 of 6) [SOSA-280/2025]
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."
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 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.
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, we are inclined to
suspend the sentence of the appellant-applicant - Khemraj S/o
Gautam, Adopted Son of Bhaga @ Bhagwana Meena during
the pendency of the appeal.
[2025:RJ-JD:12118-DB] (5 of 6) [SOSA-280/2025]
14. Accordingly, the instant third application for suspension of
sentence filed under section 430 of the BNSS is allowed and it is
ordered that the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh in Session Case No. 61/2015 vide
judgment dated 21.11.2016 against the appellant-applicant -
Khemraj S/o Gautam, Adopted Son of Bhaga @ Bhagwana
Meena 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 on 04.04.2025 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.
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-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
[2025:RJ-JD:12118-DB] (6 of 6) [SOSA-280/2025]
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.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
D.B. 2-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
