Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Omprakash @ Papu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 14 May, 2025
Bench: Dinesh Mehta, Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JD:23352-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal 2nd Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 529/2024
In
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.271/2019
Omprakash @ Papu Ram S/o Deraj Ram, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of Ehsan Ka Tala Ps Sedwa District Barmar Rajasthan
(Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RR Ankiya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
(In Court at Jodhpur)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
(Through VC from Jaipur)
Order
14/05/2025
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 04.09.2019 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Barmer in Sessions Case No.
56/2015:-
S.No Offence Sentence Fine
1. 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default
of which to further undergo
one year's additional S.I.
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the present second
application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of Code
[2025:RJ-JD:23352-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-529/2024]
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Cr.P.C') for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the
appeal and for release on bail.
3. The first application for suspension of sentence (D.B.
Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No.647/2021) was dismissed by this Court vide order dated
02.12.2021.
4. Mr. Ankiya, learned Counsel for the appellant-applicant
submits that the appellant-applicant has preferred the present
application on the solitary ground that he has already undergone
sentence of more than 10 years and there is no likelihood of
appeal being taken up for hearing in near future. Relying upon the
directions of Hon'ble The Supreme Court dated 15.09.2022 in
Sonadhar v. The State of Chhattisgarh : SLP (Crl.)
No.529/2021, learned counsel prayed that the sentence of the
applicant be suspended and he be enlarged on bail.
5. Learned counsel argued that no reasons and/or aggravating
circumstances exist for denial of bail to the applicant while placing
reliance on the order dated 05.10.2021 of Hon'ble The Supreme
Court in Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh : SLP
(Crl.) No.4633/2021. He read the relevant part/observations
made therein and submitted that the High Court should grant bail
if the accused has served more than 10 years' sentence, except
certain circumstances, and that none of the exceptions are
applicable in the present case.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General opposed the application
for suspension of sentence by contending that the appellant-
applicant has committed heinous offence and suspension of
[2025:RJ-JD:23352-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-529/2024]
sentence of such offender would send adverse message in the
society. However, he has not denied the fact that the appellant-
applicant has already undergone sentence of more than 10 years
during trial and upon conviction.
7. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on
record.
8. It is to be noted that long list of criminal appeals even filed
in the year 2008 are pending hearing; there is no possibility that
the present appeal can be taken up for hearing in near future.
9. Hon'ble The 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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:23352-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-529/2024]
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 have already undergone sentence of more
than 10 years and apparently, there are no chances of the appeal
being heard in the near future. Except for the fact that the
appellant-applicant was involved in offences leading to their
conviction for life, nothing has been brought on record by way of
aggravating circumstances for denial of suspension of sentence.
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, we are inclined to
suspend the sentence of the appellant-applicant- Omprakash @
Papu Ram S/o Deraj Ram during the pendency of the appeal.
13. Accordingly, the instant second application for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
ordered that the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge
Barmer vide judgment dated 04.09.2019 passed in Sessions Case
No.56/2015 (State of Rajasthan vs. Omprakash) against the
appellant-applicant- Omprakash @ Papu Ram S/o Deraj Ram,
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 learned trial Judge for his appearance in
this court on 16.06.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:
[2025:RJ-JD:23352-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-529/2024]
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.
14. 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 do not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
3-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
