Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narayan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25491) on 23 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:25491]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 705/2025
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.308/2025
Narayan S/o Badrilal Jet, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Newriya, P.s.
Rashmi, Dist. Chittorgarh (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail,
Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Khillery
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
23/05/2025
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been
moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment dated
04.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge NDPS Act Cases
No.1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.19/2007 whereby he was
convicted under Section 8/18(ख) of the NDPS Act and sentenced
to suffer twelve years' RI along with a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and
in default to further undergo two months' RI.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal and
factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous
conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be
appreciated again by this court being the first appellate Court. The
[2025:RJ-JD:25491] (2 of 4) [SOSA-705/2025]
appellant-applicant is in jail since 22.12.2006 and hearing of the
appeal is likely to take long time, therefore, the application for
suspension of sentence may be granted.
3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-
applicant for releasing the appellant on application for suspension
of sentence.
4. Heard on the application for suspension of sentence. After
carefully examining the statement of PW-6 Hiralal and other
prosecution witnesses, along with the report under Section 173 of
the CrPC, it is observed that on 30-12-2005, a police team
attempted to intercept a motorcycle based on secret information
regarding the transportation of contraband. However, two
individuals abandoned the motorcycle and fled away from the
scene.
4.1. According to the prosecution, Constable Hiralal identified the
fleeing individuals as Rameshwar Lal and the appellant Narayan.
Notably, only the appellant was arrested and prosecuted, while
Rameshwarlal was exonerated. Furthermore, based on a
questionable disclosure statement, another individual was
implicated, yet no inquiry was ever made regarding the status or
proceedings against Rameshwarlal--despite the fact that PW-6
Hiralal specifically stated that he fled alongside the appellant.
4.2. This Court takes serious note of the inconsistency and
apparent arbitrariness in the investigation and has called upon the
learned Public Prosecutor to provide a convincing explanation or
corroboration regarding why Rameshwar Lal was exonerated and
[2025:RJ-JD:25491] (3 of 4) [SOSA-705/2025]
only the appellant was charged however, he failed to offer any
satisfactory response.
4.3. Given that the prosecution's entire case hinges solely on the
testimony of PW-6 Hiralal, the selective reliance on only part of his
statement--without charging the other identified accused--reflects
a discriminatory and unjust approach. There is nothing on record
to justify accepting one part of PW-6 Hiralal's testimony while
discarding the other.
5. In view of the above, a strong arguable case exists in favor
of the appellant. Considering the likely delay in disposal of the
appeal, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the instant
application for suspension of sentence.
6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentence passed by learned trial court, the details of which are
provided in the first para of this order, against the appellant-
applicant named above 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/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Judge for his appearance in this court on 26.06.2025 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:25491] (4 of 4) [SOSA-705/2025]
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.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they
will give in writing their changed address to the trial
Court.
7. 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 related 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 be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to
pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said
accused applicant does not appear before the trial court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(FARJAND ALI),J
116-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
