Allowed

Praveen v. State

Rajasthan HC10 May 2019SOSA/374/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed suspension of sentences imposed on two convicts in a murder case while their appeal was pending. The court accepted arguments from counsel regarding hostile eye-witnesses and an ambiguous extra-judicial confession, ordering release on bail with a personal bond and sureties subject to appearance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Sentences suspended pending appeal disposal; appellants released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, subject to appearance conditions.

Praveen Vs State — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 374/2019

¶4

Praveen S/o Sh. Logar Lal Dangi, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Shobhagpura, Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur (Raj.) (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through PP

----Respondent

Connected With

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 375/2019

¶11

Jagdish S/o Sh. Udailal Dangi, Aged About 20 Years, By Caste Dangi, Resident Of Shobhagpura, Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

State, Through PP	Versus	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vineet Jain Mr. Navneet Poonia
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.N.S. Bhati, PP

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶15

Judgment / Order

¶16

10/05/2019

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor Shri N.S. Bhati has chosen not to file reply to the instant applications for suspension of sentences.

¶18

The contention of learned counsel Shri Vineet Jain and Shri Navneet Poonia in support of the prayer for suspension of

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

[SOSA-374/2019]

¶21

sentences awarded to the applicants-appellants is that two eye-witnesses namely Arjunlal (PW-8) and Nandlal (PW-12) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. They did not level any kind of allegation against the applicants-appellants. They further urge that the theory of extra-judicial confession deposed by PW-1 Khemraj is not specifically attributed to the either of the applicants. As per them, the highest allegation of the prosecution, even if accepted indicates that the accused Bharat was armed with a knife and it was he who inflicted fatal blows to the deceased Shankar. They urged that the applicants-appellants were on bail during trial and thus, they deserve same indulgence during pendency of the instant appeal.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants-appellants. However, he does not dispute the fact that even in the investigational statement of the eye-witnesses Arjunlal (PW-8) and Nandlal (PW-12) (who turned hostile) allegation of causing knife blows to the deceased was attributed to the co-accused Bharat.

¶23

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record. As two eye-witnesses turned hostile, the only evidence remains against the applicants is in the form of the statement of PW-1 Khem Raj who alleged that six persons including the applicants came to his house and made an extra-judicial confession of having murdered Shankarlal. However, PW-1 Khem

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

[SOSA-374/2019]

¶26

Raj has not stated as to who of the six specifically spoke he words of having murdered Shankarlal. These aspects can be better elaborated at the time of final hearing of the appeal but for the present, we are of the view that the applicants have strong grounds for assailing the judgment of conviction. They were on bail during course of trial and they did not misuse the liberty so granted to them. In this background, we are inclined to accept the instant applications for suspension of sentences.

¶27

Accordingly, the instant applications for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur, vide judgment dated 06.03.2019 in Sessions Case No.15/2014 (752/2014) against the appellants-applicants (1) Praveen S/o Shri Logar Lal Dangi & (2) Jagdish S/o Sh. Udailal Dangi shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided they execute personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 10.06.2019 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶28

That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

¶29

That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶30

Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

[SOSA-374/2019]

¶33

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicant(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶34

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶35

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶36

17-1/Sudhir Asopa

Praveen v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen 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

Achala Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Nanusingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalu Ram and Anr. Vs State

Raichand Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Vs State

Mahendra Vs State of Rajasthan