Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pradeep Vaishnav vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 15 May, 2025
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
[2025:RJ-JD:23543-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc II Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 921/2024
Pradeep Vaishnav S/o Sh. Bhanwarlal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Sarsuwali Kothi, Khariya Road, Kuchaman City, Police Station
Kuchaman City, Presently Residing At C/o Vaidh Loknath
Sharma, House No. E-123, Murlipura, Police Station Murlipura,
Jaipur (Raj.).
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail Ajmer).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Misc II Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 1750/2024
Deepak S/o Bhanwarlal, Aged About 20 Years, S/o Bhanwarlal,
B/c Regar, R/o Udaipuriya, P.s. Samod, Presently R/o House
No.29, Nadi Ka Phatak, Aakash Vihar, near Shivji Mandir
Murlipura, P.s. Murlipura, Dist. Jaipur.
(Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Ajmer).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh &
Mr. Vikram Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat for
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
(Through VC)
Order
15/05/2025
1. The appellants-applicants herein have been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 25.11.2020 passed by
[2025:RJ-JD:23543-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-921/2024]
the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Parbatsar (Nagaur), in
Session Case No.61/2014:
Offence Sentence Fine
302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.50,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo two
years S.I.
396 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.50,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo two
years S.I.
460 IPC 10 Year R.I. Rs.20,000/- and in default of
which to further undergo one
year S.I.
2. The appellants-applicants have preferred the application for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. during the
pendency of the appeal and for release on bail. Earlier application
seeking suspension of sentence was dismissed on 21.02.2022.
3. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellants-
applicants is that as the applicants are in custody for more than
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.
4. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:23543-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-921/2024]
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. However, he has not denied that the
appellants-applicants have already undergone sentence of more
than 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
2008 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 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."
9. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:23543-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-921/2024]
appeals were pending at the High Court stage with exceptions
indicated therein.
10. In the present case as observed herein-before, the
appellants-applicants have 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
appellants-applicants were involved in offence leading to their
conviction for life, nothing has been brought on record by way of
extenuating circumstances for denial of suspension of sentence.
11. 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 and only on
account of the fact that more than 10 years' sentence has already
been undergone by the appellants-applicants, we are inclined to
suspend the substantive sentence of the appellants-applicants,
namely, (1) Pradeep Vaishnav S/o Sh. Bhanwarlal & (2) Deepak
S/o Bhanwarlal, during the pendency of the appeal.
12. Accordingly, the instant applications for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is
ordered that substantive sentence passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge No.1, Parbatsar (Nagaur), in Session Case
No.61/2014 against the appellant-applicant, namely, (1) Pradeep
Vaishnav S/o Sh. Bhanwarlal & (2) Deepak S/o Bhanwarlal, shall
remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and
they shall be released on bail, provided they execute 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 07.07.2025 and whenever ordered to
[2025:RJ-JD:23543-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-921/2024]
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.
13. 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-
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-applicants do not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
1-SanjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
