Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ajay @ Bhagat vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 26 November, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:51220-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1174/2025
Ajay @ Bhagat S/o Mulchand Alias Moti Chand, Aged About 34
Years, Resident of Kadmahiya, P.S. Valmiki Nagar, District Bagha,
Revenue District West Champaran, Headquarters Betiya (Bihar)
(Appellant is Lodged in The District-Jail, Sirohi)
----Applicant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP.
----Respondent
For Applicant (s) : Mr. Padam Singh Solanki.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, PP.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
26/11/2025
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 08.10.2018 passed by
the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 Cases, Sirohi in
Sessions Case No.11/2018 (33/17)(26/15) (CIS No. 11/2018):
Offence Sentence Fine
363 IPC Simple Additional 2 months of simple
imprisonment for imprisonment
5 years with the
fine of Rs.2,000/-
366-A IPC Simple Additional 3 months of simple
imprisonment for imprisonment
10 years with the
fine of Rs.5,000/-
5(L)/6 of Imprisonment for Additional 5 months of simple
P.O.C.S.O. Life with the fine imprisonment
of Rs.10,000/-
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 03:46:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51220-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1174/2025]
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the 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.
3. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-
applicant is that as the applicant has already undergone 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.
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
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 with the submission that as the appellant-
applicant has committed heinous offence, suspension of sentence
of such offender would send adverse message in the society.
However, he has not denied that the appellant-applicant has
already undergone sentence of 10 years during trial and after
sentence. The learned Public Prosecutor has produced the custody
report, which shows that the actual period of custody is 10 years.
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 03:46:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51220-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1174/2025]
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
2018 also 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 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. "
9. 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."
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 03:46:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51220-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1174/2025]
10. 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.
11. In the present case as observed herein-before, the appellant-
applicant has already undergone sentence for 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.
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 only on account of
the fact that more than 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.
13. 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 Special
Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 Cases, Sirohi in Sessions Case
No.11/2018 (33/17)(26/15) (CIS No. 11/2018) against the
appellant-applicant, Ajay @ Bhagat 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/- each with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 03:46:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51220-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1174/2025]
satisfaction of learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court
on 02.01.2026 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 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-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused-
applicants were 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.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
79-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 03:46:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
