Allowed

Vinod Kumar @ Manoj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Sept 2021SOSA/381/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur allowed suspension of substantive sentence for two appellant-defendants convicted under POCSO and SC/ST Acts. The court cited their UNP custody period and COVID concerns as reasons to suspend sentences pending appeal finalization, conditioned on bonds and personal attendance.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of substantive sentence of Vinod Kumar and Deepu pending disposal of appeal upon execution of personal bonds, sureties, and compliance with attendance conditions.

Vinod Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 4) [SOSA-381/2021]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 381/2021

¶4

Vinod Kumar @ Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Lal Chand, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Nayak, R/o Manfoolsinghwala, Teh. Sadulshaher (Appellant Is Presently Lodged In Central Jail Sri Ganganagar)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 900/2018

¶11

Deepu @ Deepak S/o Harbansh Lal, Aged About 22 Years, B/c Nayak, Manphoolsinghwala Tehsil Sadulshahar Distt. Sri Ganganagar (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar)

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

State, Through Pp	Versus	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. DS Thind Mr. Rakesh Matoria
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. MS Bhati,PP

¶14

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶15

Order

¶16

14/09/2021

¶17

In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

¶18

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

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

[SOSA-381/2021]

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner(s) has drawn attention of this

¶22

Court to para- 80 of the impugned judgment, which reads as follows:-

¶23

“ 80fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k vfHk;qDrx.k dh nyhyksa ds lEcU/k esa i=koyh ij ekStwn lk{; dk iBu fd;k x;kA gLrxr izdj.k esa izkFkfedh fnukad 6-2-2015 dks 12-30 ih ,e ij ntZ dh xbZ gS tcfd ihfM+rk ih-M1 dk fpfdRlh; eqvk;uk fnukad 9-2-2015 dks MkDVj 'kkjnk Hkxr ds }kjk fd;k x;k gSA ihfM+rk ih-M- 2 dk fpfdRlh; eqvk;uk fnukad 9-2-2015 dks bl otg ls ugha fd;k tk ldk fd D;ksafd mls CyhfMax gks jgh FkhA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh Li"V gksrk gS fd ihfM+rk ih-M- 1 dks fnukad 7-2-2015 dks 4-54 ih ,e ij jktdh; fpfdRlky; Jhaxxkauxj esa HkrhZ djk;k x;k tcfd ihfMrk ih-M- 2 dks mlh fnukad 4-52 ih ,e ij jktdh; fpfdRlky; Jhxaxkuxj esa HkrhZ djk;k x;kA bl izdkj ;g Li"V gS fd dk;Zokgh iqfyl esa tc fnukad 6-2-2015 dks oDr 12-30 ih ,e ij Fkkukf/kdkjh xqykcflag lc baLisDVj }kjk rQrh'k vkjEHk dh xbZ rc fdlh izdkj dh rRijrk ihfM+rkvksa dk fpfdRlh; eqvk;uk djkus ds lEca/k esa vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh us ugha fn[kkbZA nksuksa ihfM+rkvksa dks fnukad 7-2-2015 dks fpfdRlky; esa HkrhZ djkus ds i'pkr Hkh mudk eqvk;uk mDr fnukad dks uk djk;k tkdj fnukad 9-2-2015 dks djk;k x;k ftlls egRoiw.kZ lk{; vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dh dksrkgh dh otg ls ,df=r ugha gks ldhA vr% izdj.k esa ;g fLFkfr Li"V gksrh gS fd vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh us nksuksa ihfM+rkvksa dk fpfdRlh; eqvk;uk djkus esa vR;Ur nsjh dh tks fd mlds nkf;Ro esa ?kksj ykijokgh dks nf'kZr djrh gSA ih-M- 7 'kkjnk Hkxr us ihfM+rk ih-M- 1 dk fpfdRlh; eqvk;uk djus ds i'pkr tks fjiksVZ rS;kj dh gS mlesa ihfM+rk dh gkbZeu dh fLFkfr ckcr dksbZ fVIi.kh ugha dh gS vFkok viuk er O;Dr ugha fd;k gSA cykRdkj ds vijk/k dh lk{; ds vR;Ur egRoiw.kZ fcUnw ds lEcU/k esa MkDVj 'kkjnk Hkxr }kjk fpfdRlh; eqvk;uk ds i'pkr fdlh izdkj dk er O;Dr ugha djuk i=koyh ij miyC/k ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa rkbZnh lk{; dks foijhr :i ls izHkkfor djrk gS] tks fd MkWDVj 'kkjnk Hkxr dh vius nkf;Ro ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh dks nf'kZr djrk gSA ”

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no injury upon the person of prosecutrix. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that no brutality is indicated on record.

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

[SOSA-381/2021]

¶27

Counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioners have undergone imprisonment of about seven years.

¶28

Learned P.P. opposed the bail application in general.

¶29

This Court on conjoint reading of record; perusal of the impugned judgment as well as upon seeing total custody period undergone by the appellants, deems it a fit case to suspend the sentence.

¶30

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

¶31

Accordingly, this application for Suspension of Sentence No.381/2021 & 900/2018 are allowed and it is directed that the sentences awarded to appellant/s – (1) Vinod Kumar @ Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Lal Chand and (2) Deepu @ Deepak S/o Harbansh Lal by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases (SC/ST Act Cases), Sri Ganganagar vide judgment dated 05.06.2018 in Sessions Case No.176/2016 (CIS No.80/2016) shall remain suspended till final disposal of aforesaid appeal provided each of them executes a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/alongwith two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for their appearance before this Court on 26.10.2021 and whenever called upon to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions inidcated below:-

¶32

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

¶33

(4 of 4)

¶34

[SOSA-381/2021]

¶35

(2) 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.

¶36

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

¶37

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.

¶38

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶39

257-258-nirmala/Sanjay-

Vinod Kumar @ Manoj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar @ Manoj Kumar 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

Devpal Singh Vs State

Anandsingh Vs Union of India

Ranjeet Singh @ Jitu Vs State of Rajasthan

Arun Chouhan Vs State

Nikesh Bhai @ Nikesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Vs State