Partly allowed

Smt Ramjanki v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC10 Sept 2018SOSA/223/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order concerns an application for suspension of sentence pending a criminal appeal. The High Court accepted suspension for two applicants (Ramjanki and Kalu) who were on bail during trial and lacked connecting evidence, but rejected the application for Mahavir, who was not on bail during trial, despite insufficient forensic matching on recovered items.

What did the court decide?

Applications for suspension of sentence allowed for Ramjanki and Kalu, with release on bail upon execution of bond set Rs.50,000/- each. Application for Mahavir dismissed.

Smt Ramjanki Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

(1) D.B. CRIMINAL MISC. (SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE)

¶3

APPLICATION No.223/2018.

¶4

¶5

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 69/2018

¶6

Smt. Ramjanki W/o Shri Mahavir, B/c Meena, R/o Village Rojadi Kachhi Basti, P. S. R. K. Puram, Kota.

¶7

(At present confined in Central Jail, Jota).

¶8

----Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

(2) D.B. CRIMINAL MISC. (SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) APPLICATION No.459/2018.

¶13

¶14

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 69/2018

¶15

Mahavir S/o Shri Jankilal, B/c Meena, R/o Village Rampura, P. S. Khanpur, District Jhalawar, at present R/o Rojadi Kachhi Basti, P. S. R. K. Puram, Kota.

¶16

(At present confined in Central Jail, Jota).

¶17

----Applicant

¶18

Versus

¶19

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp

¶20

----Respondent

¶21

(3) D.B. CRIMINAL MISC. (SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) APPLICATION No.460/2018.

¶22

¶23

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 69/2018

¶24

Kalu @ Laxman S/o Shri Gopal Singh, B/c Ahir, R/o Shiv Nagar, Rojadi Kachhi Basti, P. S. R. K. Puram, Kota.

¶25

(At present confined in Central Jail, Jota).

¶26

----Applicant

¶27

Versus

¶28

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp

----Respondent

(2 of 3)

[CRLAD-69/2018]

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Mathur for Mr. Deepak Prajapati. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonia Shandilya, P. P.

¶33

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI Order

¶34

10/09/2018

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶36

It is stated that out of three applicants-Ramjanki and Kalu were on bail during trial. No evidence against them exists so as to connect them with the crime. Ramjanki has been implicated being wife of Mahavir. The blood stained ‘saree’ recovered at her instance was not found having blood in the FSL report. Kalu has been implicated based on recovery of medical prescription of the accused from him but it does not connect him with the crime. In view of the above, application for suspension of sentence of these two accused may be accepted.

¶37

So as to applicant-Mahavir is concerned, he has been falsely implicated. There is recovery of blood stained wood and wood door apart from utensils but the FSL report does not show it to be matching of the blood group of the deceased. In view of the above, even sentence of Mahavir deserves to be suspended during pendency of appeal.

¶38

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence and submits that as per the statement of Ramswaroop (PW.9), he had dropped deceased at the residence of Mahavir and when he again went there on the next day to pick him, he was found dead. PW.2-Giriraj has given intention and motive of Mahavir. It is in reference to money transaction with Mahavir and since blood stained door and utensils were recovered

¶39

(3 of 3)

¶40

[CRLAD-69/2018]

¶41

from the house of Mahavir, his application for suspension of sentence may not be accepted. Since Ramjanki and Kalu are concerned, they have conspired the incident.

¶42

We have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶43

Applicants-Ramjanki and Kalu were on bail during trial and prima faice we find that no evidence has been found so as to connect them with the crime. However, it is only a prima facie opinion.

¶44

So as the applicant-Mahavir is concerned, he was not on bail during trial. We are thus inclined to accept the applications for suspension of sentence of the applicants-Ramjanki and Kalu while rejecting the application for suspension of sentence of applicantMahavir.

¶45

Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence of Ramjanki and Kalu are allowed and the application of Mahavir is dismissed. It is ordered that sentence awarded to accusedapplicants namely; (1) Smt. Ramjanki W/o Shri Mahavir and (2) Kalu S/o Shri Gopal Singh in Sessions Case No.03/2014 shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal and they be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupess Fifty Thousand only) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before this Court on 11.09.2018 and whenever called upon to do so.

¶46

A copy of this order be placed in each connected files.

¶47

(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J

¶48

(M. N. BHANDARI),J

¶49

A.Arora/-18.

Smt Ramjanki v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ramjanki 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Kumar Sharda Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Ramavtar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Neeraj S/O Shri Baburam B/C Jatav Vs State of Rajasthan

Pukhraj Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Vijay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Smt Sheeru Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.