Allowed

Vishram Son of Shri Johrilal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Feb 2022SOSA/828/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the accused-appellant's application for suspension of sentence, noting that a similarly situated co-accused had been acquitted and observing the appellant's prolonged custody period without adjudicating the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.

Vishram Son of Shri Johrilal Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail Application No. 828/2021

¶3

¶4

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 141/2019

¶5

Vishram S/o Shri Johrilal, R/o Talawadi Dhani Sindoli P.S. Kolwa Dist. Dausa Raj. (At Present Confined In Dist. Jail Dausa)

¶6

----Accused-Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman with Mr. Kailash Chand Meena For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rekha Madnani, AGA Mr. Mohar Pal Meena

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

15/02/2022

¶14

Accused-appellant has preferred this application for suspension of sentence.

¶15

Heard on application for suspension of sentence.

¶16

It is contended by counsel for the appellant that after rejection of the first application for suspension of sentence, trial of co-accused Kalu Ram stands concluded and vide judgment and order dated 25.11.2021, he has been acquitted. It is also contended by the counsel for the appellant that initially the prosecutrix levelled allegations against four persons which was substantiated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[SOSA-828/2021]

¶19

however, subsequently she did not press her complaint against two of the accused and Police filed charge-sheet only against the present appellant and subsequently against Kalu Ram. It is also contended by the counsel for the appellant that on the same set of evidence appellant has been convicted, whereas Kalu Ram has been acquitted. It is also contended that since Kalu Ram stands acquitted, the conviction of the appellant under Section 376-D IPC also goes. It is also contended by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant has remained in custody for a period of about 4 years and 9 months including remission period.

¶20

Learned State Counsel has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.

¶21

We have considered the contentions.

¶22

Taking note of the period of custody as well as the fact that similarly situated co-accused has been acquitted by the trial Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to allow the application for suspension of sentence.

¶23

Accordingly, the suspension of sentence application is allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused appellant in Sessions Case No. 70/2018 shall remain suspended if the appellant furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to the effect that he shall appear before this Court as and when called upon to do so.

¶24

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶25

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶26

Ritu/10

Vishram Son of Shri Johrilal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishram Son of Shri Johrilal 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

Raman S/O Shri Bharat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Titagarh Wagons Ltd. Vs the State of Rajasthan

Harji Vs State of Raj

Rajendra Kumar Son of Shri Shivraj Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh S/O Lalluram Vs Krishna Devi W/O Shri Rakesh, D/O Shri Heeralal

Commercial Taxes Officer Vs Shivdutt Kumar S/O Shri Hardum Singh