Allowed

Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 May 2023SOSA/1110/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a suspension of sentence application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. The High Court suspended the life imprisonment and other sentences of the convicted appellants and granted them bail during the pendency of their appeal, citing hostile witnesses and the likelihood of a long hearing.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence suspended till final disposal of the appeal; appellants released on bail on execution of a bond with sureties.

Mohan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1110/2022

¶3

Mohan Lal S/o Shri Hiraji Bheel, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Chachapura Ps Begun Dist. Chittorgarh Raj. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur).

¶4

Smt. Lali W/o Shri Lakhmichand Bheel, Aged about 40 years, R/o Bhakheda, P.S. Begun, at prsent Chachapura, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) (At present lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Khyani. For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

¶11

Order

¶12

26/05/2023

¶13

The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Begun, Chittorgarh in Session Case No.44/2021 (C.I.S. No.38/2015):

¶14

Offences	Sentence	Fine
304 IPC	Life Imprisonment	Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of which to further undergo threeyear’s additional S.I.
341 IPC	One month simple imprisonment	Rs.500/- and in default of which to further undergo seven days’ additional simple imprisonment
342 IPC	One year simple imprisonment	Rs.1,000/- and in default of which to further undergo

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[SOSA-1110/2022]

¶17

three months’ additional simple imprisonment.

¶18

The appellants-applicants have preferred the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for release on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

¶19

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Submissions have been made that there is no evidence worth the name to implicate the applicants to the incident, which purportedly led to the death of the victim.

¶20

Submissions have been made that though case of the complainant was that he received a phone call from Chhaganlal, who made him talk to the victim - son, However, the said Chhaganlal, the most vital witness, has not been examined.

¶21

Eight out of fifteen witnesses have turned hostile, the postmortem report has not even been exhibited and the entire judgment of the trial court is based on conjectures. The applicants were on bail during the trial, the appeal is likely to take sufficiently long time and, therefore, they may be enlarged on bail.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor contested the submissions. It was submitted that the conviction is based on the last seen and the statements of the complainant, to whom the victim had indicated that he was inter-alia given beating by the applicants and, therefore, the application be rejected.

¶23

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, besides the fact that most of the witnesses have turned hostile, there is apparently no eye witness to the incident and the

¶24

[SOSA-1110/2022]

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

indications made in the FIR as well as statement of the complainant, father of the deceased Chhaganlal, who telephoned the complainant about the incident and as per the statement of the complainant, indicated the wrong doing by the applicants, was not even cited as a witness and no explanation in this regard is forthcoming. However, without making any observations on merits of the case and the fact that one of the applicants is a lady and they were on bail during trial and the hearing of the appeal is likely to take long time, we are inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of the appellants-applicants- Mohan Lal S/o Shri Hiraji Bheel & Smt. Lali W/o Shri Lakhmichand Bheel, during the pendency of the appeal.

¶27

Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Begun, Chittorgarh in Session Case No.44/2021 (C.I.S. No.38/2015) against the appellants-applicants- Mohan Lal S/o Shri Hiraji Bheel & Smt. Lali W/o Shri Lakhmichand Bheel, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided they executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 26.06.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:

¶28

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

¶29

(4 of 4) [SOSA-1110/2022]

¶30

That if the applicant change the place of residence, he will give in writing 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-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accusedapplicants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial court. In case the said accused-applicants do not appear before the trial court, learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶33

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶34

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶35

13-pradeep/-

Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal 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

Mangi Kumari Vs the State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Choga Ram

State of Rajasthan Vs Dungra Ram

Kanhaiya Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Om Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan