Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devi Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:24983-Db) on 22 May, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:24983-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 601/2025
Devi Lal S/o Fula Meena, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Mativeli,
Garnala Kotda, Rishabhdev, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.(Presently
Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Prakash Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
22/05/2025
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 30.08.2019 passed by
the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 and Child Right
Protection Commission Act, 2005, No.2, Udaipur in Special
Sessions Case No.83/2018 (CIS No.175/2018):
Offence u/s Sentence Fine
450 IPC Five years' R.I. Rs.2,000/- and in default of which
to further undergo two months'
R.I.
458 IPC Ten years' R.I. Rs.5,000/- and in default of which
to further undergo six months' R.I.
376 IPC Imprisonment for Rs.10,000/- and in default of
life. which to further undergo one
year's R.I.
4 POCSO Act Imprisonment for Rs.10,000/- and in default of
life. which to further undergo one
year's R.I.
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. (430 BNSS) for
suspension of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and
for release on bail.
[2025:RJ-JD:24983-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-601/2025]
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that as
per the story of the prosecution, there is allegation is of rape
having been committed on 21.03.2018 by the accused appellant
upon the minor prosecutrix by entering in her house and running
away, when the hue and cry was raised. He submits that there is
no medical evidence available on record because there was
apparently delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR, as the incident is
of 21.03.2018 and the FIR was lodged on 03.04.2018. He submits
that though he has a good case on merits but he restricts his
submission to the fact that the appellant is 75 years of age and
has already undergone the custody of 7 years, 11 months and 6
days with remission as on 21.05.2025.
4. Learned GA-cum-AAG opposes the application for suspension
of sentence but he does not refute the fact that the accused
appellant is 75 years of age and has already undergone 7 years,
11 months and 6 days of custody with remission.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the fact that the accused appellant is 75 years of age
and has undergone more than 7 years of custody in totality, this
Court is of the opinion that the bail application for suspension of
sentence filed by the appellant deserves to be accepted.
7. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. (430 BNSS) is allowed
and it is ordered that substantive sentence passed by learned
Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 and Child Right Protection
[2025:RJ-JD:24983-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-601/2025]
Commission Act, 2005, No.2, Udaipur in Special Sessions Case
No.83/2018 (CIS No.175/2018), against the appellant-applicant -
Devi Lal S/o Fula 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 23.07.2025 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.
8. 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.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
32-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
