Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chainaram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 26 May, 2025
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:25635-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc. Second Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 1562/2024
Chainaram S/o Bhanwal Lal Gurjar, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
H.no. 185, Village Jhalamand, Jodhpur. (Presently Lodged In
Central Jail, Bikaner).
----Applicant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
26/05/2025
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 12.11.2021 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.6, Jodhpur Metro,
Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.14/2014 (NCV No.08/2015):
Offence Sentence Fine
302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo two
months' S.I.
120B IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo two
months' S.I.
3/25 Arms Act Three years' S.I. Rs.2,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo one
month's S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:25635-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1562/2024]
2. First application for suspension of sentence preferred by the
applicant was dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2022 passed by
this Hon'ble Court in D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence
Application (Appeal) No.595/2022.
3. The appellant-applicant has preferred this second 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.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.07.2014, the
complainant lodged a complaint that his son aged about 28-29
years, went to attend someone's funeral, where he was shot at
point blank, which caused his death.
5. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-
applicant is that as the applicant has already undergone the actual
sentence of 10 years 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.
6. 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:25635-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1562/2024]
7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for
suspension of sentence. However, he has not denied that the
appellant-applicant has already undergone the actual sentence of
10 years.
8. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on
record.
9. Looking to the fact that criminal appeal is pertaining to the
year 2022 also are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of
hearing of the present appeal in near future.
10. 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. "
11. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:25635-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1562/2024]
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."
12. 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.
13. In the present case as observed herein-before, the appellant-
applicant has already undergone sentence 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.
14. 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 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.
15. 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
Sessions Judge, No.6, Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur in Sessions Case
No.14/2014 (NCV No.08/2015) against the appellant-applicant -
[2025:RJ-JD:25635-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1562/2024]
Chainaram S/o Bhanwal Lal Gurjar 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 their appearance in this court on
28.07.2025 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 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.
16. 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.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
3-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
