Allowed

Sitaram Saini S/O Bansidhar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 Aug 2021SOSR/94/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing an application for suspension of sentence filed by a juvenile convicted of murder, the High Court allowed the petition, releasing the accused on bail pending the disposition of the revision petition.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail by furnishing personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000 each, pending disposal of the revision petition.

Sitaram Saini S/O Bansidhar Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application (Suspension of

¶3

Sentence) No.94/2021

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 446/2021

¶6

Sitaram Saini S/o Bansidhar, R/o Village Dhavli, Amarsar, District Jaipur Through Natural Guardian Father Bansidhar Saini (At Present The Accused Appellant Is Confined In The Juvenile Home, Jaipur)

¶7

----Accused/Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashwant Kankhadia, PP Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini, Advocate

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

¶13

Order

¶14

24/08/2021

¶15

Heard on the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

¶16

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 09.03.2021 passed by the learned Children Court (District and Sessions Judge) Jaipur District, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.13/2021 titled as: Sitaram Saini v. State of Rajasthan, by which the appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment and order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board No.2, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.35/2018, by which the accused-

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[CRLR-446/2021]

¶19

petitioner was convicted for offence under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of IPC and following final order was passed against the juvenile in conflict with law :-

¶20

Þvr% fd'kksj lhrkjke lSuh iq= ca'kh/kj] fuoklh pkpk dkyk dh <+k.kh ru /koyh iqfyl Fkkuk vejlj ftyk t;iqj dks /kkjk 302] 201] 120&ch Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds n.Muh; vijk/kksa ds vkjksi esa nks’kh ik;s tkus ij ekeys ds leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, mDr fd'kksj dks izR;sd vijk/k ds fy, vyx&vyx nf.Mr u fd;k tkdj lEiw.kZ ?kVuk Øe dks lexzrk esa ns[krs gq, fd”kksj U;k; vf/kfu;e ds rgr rhu o’kZ ds fy, lqjf{kr x`g esa Hksts tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA

¶21

;fn fd”kksj }kjk iwoZ esa iqfyl vfHkj{kk esa rFkk lEisz’k.k xg esa nkSjkus tk¡p vof/k O;rhr dh xbZ gS rks mDr vof/k /kkjk 428 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr vf/kjksfir ltk esa lek;ksftr dh tkosA fd”kksj dks lqjf{kr xg esa Hksts tkus gsrq fu;ekuqlkj izi= cuk;k tkosA

¶22

lqjf{kr xg esa izokl ds nkSjku izfr lIrkg de ls de nks fnu fd”kksj dh dkmUlfyax dh tk, ,oa fd”kksj v/kh{kd] laizs’k.k xg vFkok ifjoh{kk vf/kdkjh ds funsZ”kkuqlkj lkekftd lsok Hkh djsxkA

¶23

gLrxr izdj.k esa fd”kksj ds fo:) nks’kflf) vf/kfu;e ds rgr ckn xqtjus fe;kn vihy fd”kksj ds fy, fdlh izdkj dh fujgrkZ dk dkj.k ugha cusxh vFkkZr fd”kksj dks bl izdj.k dh otg ls i<+kbZ ukSdjh ;k vU; O;olk; gsrq v;ksX; djkj ugha fn;k tk;sAß

¶24

It has been submitted on behalf of the juvenile in conflict with law that the juvenile was on bail during the period of inquiry as well as during the pendency of appeal and at present, he is in Special Home, Jaipur since 09.03.2021. It has further been submitted that he has remained in custody for more than two years and six months out of total period of three years’ sentence. The case is based upon circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has not produced any eye-witness during the inquiry. The juvenile has been convicted on the basis of extra-judicial confession, which is a weak kind of testimony. The FIR is delayed by three months, for which no satisfactory explanation has been given by the prosecution. The DNA examination of the skeleton has not been successful. The alleged recoveries on the information of the

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

[CRLR-446/2021]

¶27

juvenile, are not proved by cogent evidence. The recoveries are suspicious and the juvenile in conflict with law cannot be connected with the offence on the basis of such contradictory evidence. There is no evidence of last seen.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It has been argued on their behalf that the case rests on reliable circumstantial evidence including call details and recoveries on the information of the juvenile, the evidence relating to location of the juvenile at the time of commission of the offence as well as recovery of skeleton on the information of the juvenile in conflict with law.

¶29

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record/evidence available on the file carefully.

¶30

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, overall facts and circumstances of the case and the period undergone in custody by the juvenile, but without commenting upon detailed merits of the case, this Court deems just and proper to allow the application for suspension of sentence.

¶31

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused/petitioner Sitaram Saini S/o Bansidhar , shall remain suspended till disposal of this revision petition and he be released on bail, provided his natural guardian, father furnishes a personal bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two surety bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial

¶32

(4 of 4) [CRLR-446/2021]

¶33

Court/concerned Juvenile Justice Board with the stipulation that he shall produce the petitioner before this Court on 24.09.2021 and as and when called upon to do so. His natural guardian shall ensure that the juvenile in conflict with law maintains good conduct and behaviour throughout and keep him away from the company of known criminals.

¶34

(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J

¶35

Hemant/53

Sitaram Saini S/O Bansidhar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram Saini S/O Bansidhar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulab Chand Vs Mahaveer Prasad Son of Late Shri Nand Kishore

Chotulal S/O Kalulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashwini Shrma Son of Ashok Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhanraj Kumawat S/O Late Shri Ghisalal Vs State of Rajasthan