Allowed

Mohd. Nasim Khan v. State

Rajasthan HC9 May 2017SOSA/472/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench allowed bail application to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant Mohammad Nasim Khan under Section 389 Cr.P.C. during pendency of his appeal against conviction for an offence under Section 307 IPC, based on the non-dangerous nature of injuries caused.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of substantive sentence pending final disposal of appeal, subject to personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each.

Mohd. Nasim Khan Vs State — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Suspension Of Sentence(Appeal) No. 472 / 2017

¶3

Mohammad Nasim Khan Son of Riyajudeen Ansari,, By Caste Musalman, Resident of Dimakuchi, Police Station Paneri, District Bitiadi Udal Gudi, Aasam At Present Residing At Bhatwara Swaroopganj, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi (At Present Lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)

----Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Bohra, PP

¶9

For Complainant : Mr. Surendra Surana

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

09/05/2017

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for suspension of sentence.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the allegations of inflicting injuries on the body of the injuredMujibur Rehman are against the appellant and one Afjal but as per the statements of PW-9 Dr. Ramlal and PW-13 Dr. Kiritbhai, the injuries on the head and other parts of the injured Mujbir Rehman were not dangerous to life. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that in view of the above piece of evidence, the trial court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[SOSA-472/2017]

¶17

It is further argued that from the police statement of Bhira Ram (Ex-D1), who was the neighbor of the appellant as well as of the complainant, it is clear that the complainant was the aggressor and he attacked upon the appellant and inflicted injuries by a sword.

¶18

Per contra learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the application for Suspension of Sentence.

¶19

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that a co-ordinate bench of this court has already rejected the application for Suspension of Sentence of co-accused Afjal and therefore, the application of Suspension of Sentence of the appellant is also liable to be dismissed.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶21

As per the injury report of the injured Mujbir Rehman EXP/18, he has received two injuries one on the left side of cheek and another on the scapular region. Both the injuries were caused by a sharp weapon, however as per PW-9 Dr. Ramlal and PW-13 Doctor Kiritbhai, the injuries on the body of the complainant Mujbir Rehman were not dangerous to life.

¶22

Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it just and proper to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to the accused applicant.

¶23

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Sec.389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[SOSA-472/2017]

¶26

the trial court vide judgment dated 27.07.2016 in Case No.27/2015 against applicant Mohammad Nasim Khan Son of Riyajudeen Ansari shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before this court on 08.06.2017 and whenever ordered to do so with the incorporation in the bond that as and when he will shift his place of residence, he will intimate to this Court and his lawyer about his new place of residence.

¶27

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶28

Gaurav

Mohd. Nasim Khan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Nasim Khan v. State

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

Fakrudeen Vs State

Papuram Vs Pukhraj and Anr.

Smt. Maisi Devi and Ors. Vs Sriram Yadav and Ors.

M/S Raman Dairy Vs Rajasthan Dairy Co-Operative Fd. and Anr.

Lokesh Pancholi Vs Chaturbhuj Suthar

Asararul Haq Vs Shanti Lal and Ors.