[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sandeep Goswami vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 April, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:17073-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal 2nd Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 461/2026
Sandeep Goswami S/o Navrangi Goswami, Aged About 49 Years,
In Front Of Dr. Pathak Hospital, New Dilhiha, Police Station Dihri
Nagar, District Rohas Bihar. At Presenthouse No. C-293,
Saraswati Nagar, Basni,jodhpur.
(At Present Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Applicant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Thepublic Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Urmila Chauhan, Amicus Curiae
For Respondent(s) : Mr. CS Ojha, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
13/04/2026
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 30.01.2017 passed by
the learned Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities
ACt)Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.14/2017:-
Offence Sentence Fine
376(2)(F)(I) of Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- and in default of
IPC payment of fine, further to
undergo One Year R.I.
302 of IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, further to
undergo One Year R.I.
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the second application
for suspension of sentence under Section 430 BNSS, 2023 during
the pendency of the appeal and for release on bail. Earlier
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:10:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17073-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-461/2026]
application seeking suspension of sentence was dismissed on
23.08.2018.
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 Vs. 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.
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
2008 are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing of
the present appeal in near future.
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:10:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17073-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-461/2026]
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,
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
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:10:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17073-DB] (4 of 5) [SOSA-461/2026]
been undergone by the appellant-applicant, we are inclined to
suspend the substantive sentence of the appellant-applicant,
namely, Sandeep Goswami S/o Navrangi Goswami, during
the pendency of the appeal.
12. Accordingly, the present second application for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 430 BNSS, 2023 is allowed and it is
ordered that substantive sentence passed by learned Special
Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act)Cases, Jodhpur, in
Session Case No.14/2017 against the appellant-applicant, namely,
Sandeep Goswami S/o Navrangi Goswami, 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 18.05.2026 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 change 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 their address they will
give in writing their changed address to the trial court.
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 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
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:10:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17073-DB] (5 of 5) [SOSA-461/2026]
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.
14. It is further directed that Ms. Urmila Chauhan, learned
amicus curiae appointed by this Court shall be paid remuneration
by the State Legal Services Authority. The concerned authority
shall ensure release of the said amount expeditiously, upon
completion of necessary formalities.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
100-nitin/-
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 01:10:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
