Allowed

Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Apr 2022SOSA/795/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The appellant, convicted of murder and atroities, was ordered released on bail with a personal bond until the appeal is decided, subject to specified attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentences and grant of bail pending appeal with a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 795/2021

¶3

Om Prakash S/o Prabhu Ram, Aged About 42 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Dhadhal, Tehsil Rajgarh, Dist. Churu. (At Present Confined In Dist. Jail, Churu)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

Babu Lal S/o Om Prakash B/C Meghwal, R/o Dadhal Shera, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu

¶8

		----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr. Mr.	J.S. Choudhary Sr. Advocate with Pradeep Choudhary} Navneet Godara
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	B.R.Bishnoi,PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶10

Order

¶11

04/04/2022

¶12

The instant application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is preferred on behalf of the appellantapplicant Om Prakash S/o Prabhu Ram, who has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 11.10.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases),

¶13

Churu in Sessions Case No.47/2012.

¶14

Offences	Sentences	Fine	Fine Default sentences
Section 302 IPC	Life Imprisonment	Rs.10,000/-	One Year’s additional Rigorous imprisonment
Section 201 IPC	5 Years Rigorous Imprisonment	Rs.5,000/-	Six Months’ additional Rigorous imprisonment
Section 3 (2)(V) of the SC/ST Act	Life Imprisonment	Rs.10,000/-	One Year’s additional Rigorous

(2 of 4)

[SOSA-795/2021]

imprisonment

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶19

Since the matter pertains to the accusation falling under the

¶20

penal provisions of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, therefore, notices were issued to the complainant/victim Babu Lal so as to invite him to protest the bail plea, if he desires to do so. However, despite notice, no one has put in appearance on his behalf. The receipt of the intimation sent to the victim Babu Lal be taken on record.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned judgment and the material available on record.

¶22

It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellantapplicant that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence; the circumstance pitted against the petitioner is that the deceased was seen last in the company of the appellant-applicant; there is no other corroborative piece of evidence to support or substantiate the allegation of murder. Learned counsel further submits that the testimony of Ram Kumar (P.W.3) is not credible enough to sustain the conviction. He further submits that the appellant-applicant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him; the hearing of the appeal would likely to consume time and there is strong and arguable case in favour of the appellantapplicant. Thus, learned counsel representing the appellant, sought acceptance of the application for suspension of sentences craving indulgence of bail to the appellant, during pendency of the appeal.

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[SOSA-795/2021]

¶25

In this background and having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused appellant during the pendency of the appeal.

¶26

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 Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Churu vide judgment dated 11.10.2021 in Sessions Case No.47/2012 against the appellantapplicant Om Prakash S/o Prabhu 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.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 04.05.2022 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

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 accusedapplicant 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

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

[SOSA-795/2021]

¶33

pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶34

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶35

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶36

52-Mamta/-

Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash 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

Vineet Tiwari Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mr. Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Singh Chouhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalpana @ Vandana @ Gulla Vs State