Allowed

Pramod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Jul 2022SOSA/196/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application for suspension of sentence and bail under Section 389 CrPC. The appellant, serving a life and imprisonment term, was found suffering from Aplastic Anemia. The court granted bail pending appeal on medical grounds requiring a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The sentences passed in Sessions Case No.23/2014 are suspended till final disposal; appellant released on bail with a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Misc II Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 196/2021

¶3

Pramod Kumar S/o Sh. Sahab Ram, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Bharwana, Tehsil Bhadra Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. R.K.	Bohra
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. R.R.	Chhaparwal,P.P.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶10

Order

¶11

21/07/2022

¶12

The instant application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant Pramod Kumar S/o Sahab Ram, who has been convicted and sentenced as below vide the judgment dated 22.04.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.23/2014.

¶13

Offence for which convicted	Sentence, fine and default sentence awarded
Section 302/34 IPC	Life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months
Section 120-B IPC	Rigorous imprisonment of 10 years alongwith a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months
Section 364 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment of 10years alongwith a

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[SOSA-196/2021]

¶16

	fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months
Section 364-A IPC	Rigorous imprisonment of 14 years alongwith a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months
Section 201 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment of 3 years alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month

¶17

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the appellantapplicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶18

The first application for suspension of sentences preferred by the appellant-applicant for suspension of sentences was rejected by this court vide order dated 26.07.2019. Now this second application has been moved primarily on medical grounds with the averment that the appellant herein is suffering from bone marrow deficiency/cancer and proper treatment cannot be provided to the appellant while he is lodged in prison. The appellant herein is in custody in the present case since March 2014.

¶19

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a medical report of the appellant, as per which, the appellant is suffering from Aplastic Anemia. He is being provided treatment for this ailment since the year 2016. Presently he is being provided treatment at the Oncology Department at the SMS Hospital, Jaipur. However, it cannot be denied that proper treatment for this life threatening ailment cannot be administered to the appellant while he is incarcerated in prison. Thus, the instant

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[SOSA-196/2021]

¶22

application for suspension of sentences deserves to be accepted purely on medical grounds.

¶23

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 22.04.2016 in Sessions Case No.23/2014 against the appellant-applicant Pramod Kumar S/o Sahab Ram shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 24.08.2022 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶24

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

¶25

That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶26

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

¶27

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant was 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 does not appear before the trial

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[SOSA-196/2021]

¶30

court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶31

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶32

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶33

28-prashant/-

Pramod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Rakesh Kumar Jain

Guljag Industries Ltd. Vs the Commissioner,Commercial Taxes and Ors.

Guljag Industries Ltd. Vs the Commissioner,Commercial Taxes and Ors.

Hakma Vs State of Rajasthan

Govind Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Tara Chand Vs Union of India