Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vindo Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22604) on 9 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:22604]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 699/2025
IN
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.774/2025
1. Vindo Sharma S/o Shri Premshankar, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Awleshwar, Police Station Athuniya, District
Pratapgarh. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail Udaipur)
2. Sandeep Alias Mangilal S/o Shri Mannalal, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Basar, Police Station Kotwali, District
Pratapgarh. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail Udaipur)
3. Mohammad Rafik S/o Shri Mohammad Ali, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Basar, Police Station Kotwali, District
Pratapgarh. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail Udaipur)
4. Saddam Alias Salamudin S/o Shri Mohinudin, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Basar, Police Station Kotwali, District
Pratapgarh. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail Udaipur)
5. Salim Shekh S/o Shri Sakur Shekh, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Basar, Police Station Kotwali, District Pratapgarh.
(Presently Lodged At Central Jail Udaipur)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Gaur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
09/05/2025
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been
moved on behalf of the applicants in the matter of judgment
dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Session
Judge, Banswara in Criminal Sessions Case No.16/2020 (CIS
No.16/2020) whereby they were convicted and sentenced to
[2025:RJ-JD:22604] (2 of 4) [SOSA-699/2025]
suffer maximum imprisonment of 05 years' R.I. under
Section 402 of the IPC and lesser punishment for the other
offences under Sections 144 & 143 of IPC and Section 4/25 of
the Arms Act.
2. It is contended on behalf of the applicants 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. They were on bail during trial
and did not misuse the liberty so granted to him; 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 on behalf of the accused-applicants
for releasing the appellants on application for suspension of
sentence.
4. Heard and perused the material available on record.
5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the
case, more particularly the facts/fact that the accused-
applicants was on bail during the course of trial and the
hearing of appeal is likely to take further more time and
considering the overall submissions while refraining from
passing any comments on the niceties of the matter and the
defects of the prosecution as the same may put an adverse
effect on hearing of the appeal, this Court is of the opinion
[2025:RJ-JD:22604] (3 of 4) [SOSA-699/2025]
that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to
the accused-applicants.
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-applicants named above shall remain suspended till
final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be
released on bail provided each of them 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 their appearance in this court on - 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.
(3) Similarly, if the sureties change their
addresses, 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-applicants in a separate file. Such file be
registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in
which the accused-applicants was tried and convicted. A copy
of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready
[2025:RJ-JD:22604] (4 of 4) [SOSA-699/2025]
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-applicants
do 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
134-Samvedana/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
