Allowed

Irshad v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC13 Dec 2016SOSA/1427/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC filed by an appellant convicted in a POCSO case, directing him to furnish a bond and guarantee for the suspension to remain effective during the pendency of his appeal.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence awarded to the accused for the pendency of the appeal, subject to furnishing a bond and guarantee with appearance conditions.

Irshad Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

SB Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 1427/2016

¶3

¶4

SB Criminal Appeal No. 1468/2016 (Irshad Versus The State of Rajasthan)

¶5

Date of Order :: 13^th December, 2016

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶7

Mr. Anshuman Saxena, counsel for the accused applicant Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, P.P. for the State

¶8

This application for suspension of sentence has been filed by the applicant under Section 389 CrPC.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that during trial the applicant was on bail and after passing the judgment of conviction and sentence by the court below, his sentence has been suspended by the court below till 2.1.2017. He has annexed the certificate under Rule 311(3) of Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 to this effect. He has prayed that this suspension of sentence application of the applicant should be allowed and sentence of the applicant should be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

¶10

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed same.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material available on record, this suspension of sentence application filed by the applicant-appellant is allowed and it is ordered that execution of sentence awarded to accused applicant Irshad S/o Shri Yusuf, by Special Judge, (Protection of children from Sexual Offences) Act, Kota in Sessions Case No. 134/2014 shall remain

¶12

¶13

suspended during the pendency of the appeal, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakh) together with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before this Court on 13^th January, 2017 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so.

¶14

(Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J.

¶15

¶16

¶17

All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.

¶18

Dilip Khandelwal

¶19

Irshad v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irshad v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Smt Sushila Devi Vs the Secretary U D H Dep andORS

Smt Hawa Kanwar Vs Shri Suwa Lal and Another

Gopal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Manjeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp