Dismissed

Raj Alis Raju Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Rajasthan HC24 Sept 2014SOSA/639/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In S.B. Cr. Misc. SOS App. No. 639/2014 in S.B. Cr. App. No. 941/2010, the Court addressed an applicant seeking suspension of sentence due to a four-year delay in hearing his appeal. The Court dismissed the application but directed the Chief Justice for earlier disposal. It held that mere delay by the court, without change of circumstances justifying suspension, is insufficient.

What did the court decide?

The applicant's third application for suspension of sentence was dismissed; the matter was placed before the Chief Justice for direction for earlier disposal of the appeal.

Raj Alis Raju Chaudhary Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P. — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

S.B. Cr. Misc. 3^rd SOS Appl. No.639/2014

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶4

O R D E R IN

¶5

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. IIIRD SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE APPLICATION NO.639/2014 IN S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.941/2010 (Raj @ Raju Choudhary @ Satyendra Vs. State of Rajasthan)

¶6

Date of Order :

¶7

24.09.2014

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶9

Mr. Naresh Gupta, for the accused-applicant. Mr. Rishi Raj Singh, public prosecutor. BY THE COURT

¶10

The main contention of the counsel for the accusedapplicant in this third application for suspension of sentence is that the accused-applicant has been jailed since 24.07.2010. He submits that over a period of four years have elapsed and the criminal appeal against the order of conviction is not being heard. It is submitted that the accused-applicant is a married young boy with a young wife and has two minor daughters aged about 6 & 4 years. It is submitted that one way or the other the accused-applicant has also a right to have his appeal heard in time and the appeal is not being heard by itself is a ground for allowing an application for suspension of sentence inasmuch as in the event the accused-applicant were to be finally acquitted in the appeal of which he is sanguine, there would be no recompense for him for the period in jail. Counsel submits that the continued incarceration of the accused-applicant during the

¶11

S.B. Cr. Misc. 3^rd SOS Appl. No.639/2014

¶12

(2)

¶13

pendency of his appeal which is not being heard by this Court works injustice not only on him but also on his entire young family. He submits that on this ground alone the accusedapplicant is entitled for this application for suspension of sentence being allowed inasmuch as the first application for suspension of sentence was dismissed on ground of parity with Mool Chand—a co-accused also in jail following the conviction for the same offence and the second application for suspension of sentence which was also dismissed was limited to the grant of interim bail for reason of illness of the accused-applicant's wife.

¶14

Mr. Rishi Raj Singh, learned Public Prosecutor submits that he is ready to argue the appeal and there is no occasion for this third application for suspension of sentence being considered and allowed. The case of the accused-applicant is at par with co-accused Mool Chand who continues to be in jail as his application for suspension of sentence has also been dismissed. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no change of circumstances since the dismissal of the first application for suspension and the mere delay in the disposal of the appeal is not attributable to State, but an issue of this Court and that by itself cannot entail indulgence by this court for allowing of the third application for suspension of sentence.

¶15

Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶16

The submissions of the counsel for the accusedapplicant cannot be dismissed out of hand as it is indeed true

¶17

S.B. Cr. Misc. 3^rd SOS Appl. No.639/2014

¶18

(3)

¶19

that in the event the accused-applicant were to be finally acquitted in his appeal, there would be no recompense for him for period spent under incarceration. However, the fact also remains that the first application for suspension of sentence was dismissed by this Court taking into consideration various circumstances such as the case of the accused-applicant being at par that with Mool Chand whose application for suspension of sentence had been dismissed as also the fact that during trial the accused-applicant was an absconder subsequent to having been granted bail in the course of trial.

¶20

Consequently, in my considered opinion even while there not being any sufficient ground for grant of this third application for suspension of sentence, the matter may be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for requisite direction for disposal of the appeal at an earlier date.

¶21

The third application for suspension of sentence is accordingly dismissed.

¶22

MS/-

¶23

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.- Manoj Solanki, P.A.

Raj Alis Raju Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Alis Raju Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Kumar Sharma Vs Dr Manjeet Singh and Anr.

Mahant Siya Ram Das Vs Ram Sevak and Ors.

Annapurna Mahila Sahakari Ors. Vs O P Meena and Others

Somdutt Sharma and Ors. Vs Govind Sharma and Others

Vikram Kumar Vyas Vs Deepak Upreti and Others

Ganga Ram Jatav Vs Deepak Upreti and Others