[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Tarachand vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 April, 2026
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:16324-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc. IV Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 1080/2025
Tarachand S/o Shri Lichhman Ram, Aged About 22 Years,
Resident Of Village Madam, Police Station- Didwana, District
Nagaur (Raj.) (Presently Lodged in Open Air Camp, Sikar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ayushi Rathore
Mr. Hitendra Singh
Mr. Jitendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
08/04/2026
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 13.03.2019 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana, District Nagaur
in Sessions Case No.37/2015:
Offence Sentence Fine
302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.20,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to further
undergo two years' R.I.
324 IPC Two Years' R.I. Rs.5000/- and in default of
payment of fine to further
undergo six months'
additional R.I.
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 06:48:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16324-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1080/2025]
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred this fourth application
for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C./430 of
B.N.S.S. 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 actual
sentence of 10 years, 5 months and 11 days 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. However, he has not denied that the
appellant-applicant has already undergone the actual sentence of
10 years, 5 months and 11 days, and a total sentence of 13 years
and 09 days.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on
record.
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 06:48:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16324-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1080/2025]
7. Looking to the fact that criminal appeal pertaining to year
2019 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."
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
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 06:48:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16324-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1080/2025]
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 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 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./430 of B.N.S.S. is
allowed and it is ordered that substantive sentence passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana, District Nagaur in
Sessions Case No.37/2015 against the appellant-applicant -
Tarachand S/o Shri Lichhman 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/- to the satisfaction of
learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on
11.05.2026 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the
appeal on the conditions indicated below:
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 06:48:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16324-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1080/2025]
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 changes the place of
residence, he 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-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 does not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
1-Nirmala-nishantk/-
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 06:48:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
