Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Prem vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 5 May, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:21438-DB]

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                            JODHPUR
     D.B. Criminal Misc II Suspension Of Sentence Application
                      (Appeal) No. 625/2025

1.     Smt. Prem W/o Shri Suwa Ram, Aged About 50 Years,
       Resident Of Village Bhinder, P.s. Guda Endla, District Pali.
       (At Present Open Air Camp Bichwal Bikaner)
2.     Suwa Ram S/o Dana Ram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
       Village Bhinder, P.s. Guda Endla, Dist. Pali (At Present In
       Open Air Camp Bichwal Bikaner)
                                                    ----Petitioners
                              Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order 05/05/2025

1. The appellants-applicants herein have been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 26.02.2019 passed by

the learned Additional Session Judge, Pali in Sessions Case

No.98/2015 (CIS No.935/2014) :

Offence Sentence Fine 498-A IPC Three years R.I. Rs.5,000/- and in default of which to further undergo two months' additional sentence.

302 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.25,000/- and in default of which to further undergo six months' additional sentence.

304-B IPC Life imprisonment Rs.20,000/- and in default of which to further undergo five months' additional sentence.

2. The appellants-applicants have preferred the application for

suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension

[2025:RJ-JD:21438-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-625/2025]

of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and for release on

bail.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against

the present appellants is that on 27.7.2014, the deceased was

killed by the in-laws by burning.

3.1 Learned counsel further submits that though the merits of

the case warrant intervention, but he is restricting his arguments

to the prolonged period of incarceration endured by the appellant

i.e. more than 10 years.

4. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-

applicant is that the applicant has undergone a sentence of more

than 10 years 8 months and 10 days and 12 years 20 days (with

remission) as on 02.05.2025 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 they be enlarged on bail.

5. 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.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for

suspension of sentence with the submission that as the appellant-

applicant has committed heinous offence, suspension of sentence

[2025:RJ-JD:21438-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-625/2025]

of such offender would send adverse message in the society.

However, he has not denied that the appellants-applicants have

already undergone sentence of 10 years 08 months and 10 days

as on 02.05.2025 during trial and after sentence.

7. We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on

record.

8. Looking to the fact that criminal appeals pertaining to year

2018 also are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing

of the present appeal in near future.

9. 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. "

10. 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:21438-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-625/2025]

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."

11. 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.

12. 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 sentences.

13. 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 more than 10 years' sentences has already been

undergone by the appellants-applicants, we are inclined to

suspend the substantive sentences of the appellants-applicants

during the pendency of the appeal.

14. 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 the learned

Additional Session Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No.98/2015 (CIS

No.935/2014) against the appellants-applicants, Smt. Prem W/o

[2025:RJ-JD:21438-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-625/2025]

Shri Suwa Ram and Suwa Ram S/o Dana Ram, shall remain

suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall

be released on bail, provided they executes 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 their appearance in this

court on 05.06.2025 and whenever ordered to 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.