Allowed

Satveer Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2022SOSA/56/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur allowed the suspension of sentences and release on bail to two appellants convicted of murder. This was done pending the disposal of an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of two co-accused, as the final decision on that appeal was anticipated to be delayed.

What did the court decide?

Sentences suspended; appellants released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Satveer Singh Vs State — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 56/2022

¶3

Satveer Singh S/o Sh. Om Singh, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Village Udasar Bada, Teh. Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner).

¶4

Vikram Singh S/o Sh. Shishpal Singh, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Village Udasar Bada, Teh. Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner).

----Petitioners

Versus

State, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Gaur For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP Mr. R.S. Choudhary

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

¶11

Order

¶12

04/03/2022

¶13

The appellants-applicants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 12.01.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.06/2014 (48/2013):

¶14

Offence Under	Imprisonment	Fine	Sentence in
Section			default of fine
302/34 IPC	Life Imprisonment	Rs.10,000/-	1 Month’s RI

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[SOSA-56/2022]

¶17

They have preferred the instant application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. craving indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application for SOS for which the appellants have undergone substantive sentence of nearly 8 years and 4 months and they have served sentence of 10 years and 3 months with remission.

¶19

The prosecution has come out with a case that the appellants herein and the coaccused Dholu Singh and Surjeet Singh (since acquitted) assaulted the first informant Banwari (PW.1) and his brother Pradeep @ Dalip on 24.07.2013 while they were proceeding together on a motorcycle. These assailants were armed with Lathis, Sariyas and Sharp - edged weapons. The first informant somehow managed to escape but Pradeep was dragged down from the motorcycle and was brutally beaten. The complainant informed his nephew Sharwan while he was escaping from the spot. Jagdish, Aadram, Atmaram, Hari Singh, Bhani Ram and Sharwan proceeded to the place of incident where they met Shri Pradeep who was lying down in an injured condition. Pradeep told them about the assault.

¶20

During the course of trial, the informant Banwari was examined as PW.1. He alleged that the four persons who were named in the FIR were the assailants who assaulted him and the deceased Pradeep. In his sworn testimony, Banwari Lal made an improvement and alleged that Satveer was armed with Kapa and Vikram was having an axe of which they gave blows on the head of the deceased. Sarjeet was having an iron rod and Dholu was having a lathi with which they inflicted blows on the head of the deceased. The trial court appreciated the evidence and acquitted

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

[SOSA-56/2022]

¶23

Dholu Singh and Surjeet Singh by giving them benefit of doubt. The State has filed an appeal against their acquittal.

¶24

Having heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and on going through the evidence available on record, it is clear that the witnesses Banwari Lal gave direct testimony and the witnesses Jagdish (PW.2), Shrwan (PW.3) and Hari Singh (PW.4) gave evidence of oral dying declaration. As per which, all the four accused named in the FIR were alleged to be the assailants. Two accused named by these witnesses, have been acquitted on the same evidence. The appellants have remained behind the bars for a period of nearly eight and half years. The State has challenged the acquittal of Dholu Singh and Surjeet Singh by filing an appeal. Final disposal of both the appeals is unlikely in near future. We are of the opinion that the appellants have available to them strong and plausible grounds for assailing the impugned judgment dated 12.01.2017.

¶25

Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District hanumangarh vide judgment dated 12.01.2017 in Sessions Case No.06/2014 (48/13) against the appellants-applicants (1) Satveer Singh S/o Shri Om Singh and (2) Vikram Singh S/o Shri Shishpal Singh shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail subject to the condition that each of them shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 04.04.2022 and whenever ordered

¶26

(4 of 4)

¶27

[SOSA-56/2022]

¶28

to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶34

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶35

26-divya/-

Satveer Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satveer Singh 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

Rajendra @ Goru Vs State

Siddarth Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan

Tulsi Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Pawan Vs State of Rajasthan

Banshilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahaveer Prasad Vs Hemant Kumar Gera