Allowed

Tejmal Meena S/O Shri Hanutaram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 May 2020SOSA/513/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a D.B. Criminal Misc. Application for suspension of sentence. The court acknowledged that appellants were on bail during trial and the deceased statement did not attribute overt acts to them. Sentence was suspended pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended during pendency of appeal; bail admitted subject to satisfaction of Trial Court.

Tejmal Meena S/O Shri Hanutaram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of Sentence No. 513/2020

¶3

¶4

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 123/2020

¶5

Tejmal Meena S/o Shri Hanutaram Meena, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Dhani Dholki Tan Jhar Police Station Bassi, District Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶6

Smt. Mooli Devi W/o Jagdish, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Dhani Dholki Tan Jhar Police Station Bassi District Jaipur Raj. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶7

Smt. Parwati W/o Late Shri Ramkishor, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Dhani Dholki Tan Jhar Police Station Bassi District Jaipur Raj. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶8

Smt. Kamli W/o Shri Ramkrishan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Dhani Dholki Tan Jhar Police Station Bassi District Jaipur Raj. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶9

----Appellants/Applicants

¶10

	Versus
State Of Rajasthan,	Through P.P. ----Respondent
For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Anil Kumar Upman
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. N.S. Gurjar for the Sate
For Complainant	: Mr. Mahesh Gupta

¶11

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

15/05/2020

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the appellants/applicants as well as learned counsel for the complainant through video conferencing.

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants has submitted that the appellants/applicants were on bail, during trial. Statement of the deceased was recorded by the Investigating Officer while the deceased was under treatment. In the said statement, deceased has alleged that he had been inflicted injuries by Kaluram, Prahlad and Ramjilal. So far as the appellants/applicants are concerned, no overt act was attributed to them by the deceased in his statement before the Investigating Officer.

¶17

Learned state counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the application but have failed to controvert the factual aspect of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants/applicants.

¶18

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to suspend the sentence of the applicants/appellants during the pendency of the appeal.

¶19

Accordingly, application is allowed. Sentence of the applicants/appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal. Applicants/appellants be admitted to bail subject to satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶20

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J

¶21

(SABINA),J

¶22

Mohita /12

Tejmal Meena S/O Shri Hanutaram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejmal Meena S/O Shri Hanutaram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

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

Ramniwas S/O Shri Surjaram B/C Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh S/O Shri Richpal, by Caste Saini, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishanlal S/O Shri Richpal, by Caste Saini, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Azam S/O Shri Abdul Samad Khan B/C Muslim Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Sunita W/O Late Shri Gordhan @ Gordhan Soni Vs the State of Rajasthan

Raju S/O Ranjeet Vs State of Rajasthan