Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Prakash @ Omprakash vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 12 March, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:13847-DB]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
 D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                                   No. 93/2025

Prakash @ Omprakash S/o Daulat Ram, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Banda, Police Station Anupgarh, District Anupgarh.
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail Sri Ganganagar)
                                                                           ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
                                                                      ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Ms. Anjali Kaushik for Mr. Shree Kant
                                   Verma
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG



       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI

Order

12/03/2025

1. The applicant-appellant herein has been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 09.07.2024, passed by

the learned Special Judge, Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases,

Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.19/2015 (CIS No.507/2015):-

Offence Sentence Fine 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.20,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo one year's additional R.I.

2. The applicant-appellant has preferred the present application

under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 (old Section 389 Cr.P.C.) for

suspension of his sentences during the pendency of the appeal

and for release on bail.

[2025:RJ-JD:13847-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-93/2025]

3. The allegations in the present case are that on 19.11.2014

an FIR was lodged on the complaint of complainant i.e. Hazariram

before the SHO, Police Station Anupgarh stating there in that his

daughter Bimla Devi who was married to Prakash, was killed by

the accused Prakash and his parents.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant without going

into the merits of the case raised a plea that as the applicant has

already undergone sentence for more than 10 years because he is

in custody since 20.11.2014 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 Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the

complainant opposed the application for suspension of sentence

on merits and submitted that as the appellant-applicant has

committed heinous offence, suspension of sentence of such

offender would send adverse message in the society. However,

they have not denied that the appellant-applicant has already

[2025:RJ-JD:13847-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-93/2025]

undergone sentence for more than 10 years as he is in custody

since 20.11.2014.

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 appeal pertaining to year

2016 is also 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

[2025:RJ-JD:13847-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-93/2025]

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 applicant-

appellant 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 applicant-appellant, we are inclined to suspend

the substantive sentences of the applicant-appellant 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 the learned Special

Judge, Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases, Sriganganagar in

Sessions Case No.19/2015 (CIS No.507/2015) against the

applicant-appellant Prakash @ Omprakash S/o Daulat Ram

shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal

[2025:RJ-JD:13847-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-93/2025]

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 Judge for his

appearance in this court on 15.04.2025 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 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.