Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohan vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 12 March, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:13880-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 165/2025
Mohan S/o Rameshwar Das, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village
Pithas And P.s. Kotari Dist Bhilwara (Presently Lodged In Open
Air Camp Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaluram Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
12/03/2025
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 25.04.2014 passed by
the learned Additional Session Judge, women Atrocities Cases,
District Bhilwara, in Sessions Case No.43/2007:
Offence Sentence Fine
302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment
376/34 of IPC 10 years R.I. Rs.5,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo six
months' S.I.
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.
3. Learned counsel further submits that similarly placed co-
accused Haldhar @ Haldar has been accorded suspension of
sentence by this Court in D.B. Cr. Misc. III Suspension of Sentence
[2025:RJ-JD:13880-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-165/2025]
Application (Appeal) No.733/2024 on 17.12.2024, the case of the
present appellant-applicant is not distinguishable from that of the
said co-accused and therefore, the appellant may also be accorded
benefit of suspension of sentence.
3.1 Learned counsel further submits that though the merits of
the case warrant intervention, but he is restricting his arguments
to the prolonged period of incarceration endured by the appellant
i.e. more than 10 years.
4. The plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-
applicant is that the applicant has undergone a sentence of 10
years, 09 months and 20 days as on 14.02.2025 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.
4.1. 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.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for
suspension of sentence with the submission that as the appellant-
applicant has committed heinous offence, suspension of sentence
of such offender would send adverse message in the society.
[2025:RJ-JD:13880-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-165/2025]
However, he has not denied that the applicant has already
undergone a total sentence of 10 years during trial and after
sentence.
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 appeals pertaining to year
2014 also are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing
of the present appeal 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
[2025:RJ-JD:13880-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-165/2025]
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."
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 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.
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' 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.
13. 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, (Women Atrocities Cases), District Bhilwara, in
Session Case No.43/2007 against the appellant-applicant Mohan
S/o Shri Rameshwar Das, shall remain suspended till final
[2025:RJ-JD:13880-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-165/2025]
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 Judge for his appearance in this court on 21.04.2025
and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on
the conditions indicated below:
1. That they will appear before the trial court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is
decided.
2. That if the applicants change the place of
residence, they 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.
14. 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-
applicants were 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-applicants do not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
75-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
