Allowed

Jai Singh Son of Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Apr 2023SOSA/138/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge criminal bench allowed an application for suspension of sentence. The court noted the applicant's ten-year custody, a four-day delay in lodging the FIR, and that the initial complaint lacked an allegation against him.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence allowed subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.

Jai Singh Son of Ram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/006215]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 138/2023

¶4

¶5

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.471/2015

¶6

Jai Singh Son Of Ram Singh, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Kayampura, Police Station Gegal District Ajmer (Raj). (At Present In Open Camp).

¶7

----Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Applicant(s)	: Mr. Susheel Pujari
For State	: Mr. Javed Choudhary, Addl. Govt. Adv.
For Victim	: None Present

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶13

Order

¶14

10/04/2023

¶15

Accused-applicant has preferred this application for

¶16

suspension of sentence.

¶17

Heard on application for suspension of sentence.

¶18

It is contended by counsel for the accused-applicant that

¶19

applicant has remained in custody for a period of about ten years and disposal of appeal is bound to take time. It is also contended that there is delay of four days in lodging the F.I.R. In the initial complaint, there was no allegation against the present applicant.

¶20

Victim in this case has already been intimated about filing of

¶21

the criminal appeal as well as application for suspension of

(2 of 2)

[2023/RJJP/006215]

[SOSA-138/2023]

sentence. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the victim.

¶26

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the present application for suspension of sentence.

¶27

We have considered the contentions.

¶28

Considering the custody period of the applicant, also considering the fact that there is delay of four days in lodging the F.I.R. and in the initial complaint there was no allegation against the present applicant, hence, we deem it proper to allow the present application for suspension of sentence.

¶29

Accordingly, the present application for suspension of sentence is allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-applicant in Sessions Case No.22/2013, shall remain suspended if the accused-applicant 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.

¶30

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶31

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶32

AMIT/26

Jai Singh Son of Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Singh Son of Ram Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyanarayan Son of Nawal Kishore Dokwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Prasad @ Shankar S/O Shri Kundan Lal Prajapati Vs State of Rajasthan

Ranjeet Saini S/O Shri Gyarsi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Anshi @ Anshar Son of Kamroo @ Kamruiddin Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikram Singh S/O Sultan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajam Khan S/O Shri Ajeem Khan Vs State of Rajasthan