[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raichand vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 April, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:17114-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 829/2023
Raichand S/o Shri Kamji Meena, Aged About 76 Years, B/c
Meena, R/o Nandikhera, P.s. Salamgarh, District Pratapgarh. (At
Present Lodged In District Jail, Pratapgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.V.S. Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
13/04/2026
1. The first application for suspension of sentence preferred by
the appellant-applicant was dismissed on 10.05.2019. Learned
counsel submits that the appellant-applicant has completed more
than 10 years of sentence, therefore, the present second
application has been filed.
2. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 07.02.2019 passed by
the Special Court, POCSO Act, 2012 & Commission for Protection
of Child Rights Act, 2005, District Pratapgarh in Sessions Case
No.225/2018:
Offence Sentence Fine
376 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.50,000/- in default of
payment further to undergo
six months' simple
imprisonment
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:30:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17114-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-829/2023]
323 IPC One year's simple Rs.1,000/- in default of
imprisonment payment further to undergo
ten day's simple
imprisonment
341 IPC One month's Rs.500/- in default of
simple payment further to undergo
imprisonment five days' simple
imprisonment
2. The appellant-applicant has have preferred the second
application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C.
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 is 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
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 sentence of more than
10 years during trial and after sentence.
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:30:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17114-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-829/2023]
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 appeal pertaining to year
2019 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
appeals were pending at the High Court stage with exceptions
indicated therein.
10. 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,
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:30:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17114-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-829/2023]
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 appellant-applicant, we are inclined to
suspend the substantive sentence of the appellant-applicant,
namely, Raichand S/o Shri Kamji Meena during the pendency of
the appeal.
12. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
ordered that substantive sentence passed by Special Court,
POCSO Act, 2012 & Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act,
2005, District Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No.225/2018 against
the appellant-applicant, namely, Raichand S/o Shri Kamji Meena
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 satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his
appearance in this court on 14.05.2026 and whenever ordered to
do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated
below:
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 his changed address to the trial
Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change his address(s) he will
give in writing their changed address to the trial court.
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:30:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17114-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-829/2023]
13. 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(s) was/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-applicant do not appear before the trial
court, learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court
for cancellation of bail.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
23-T.Singh/-
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:30:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
