Allowed

Saroj @ Babu Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Apr 2023SOSA/262/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court suspended the sentence awarded to Saroj @ Babu Devi under Section 389 Cr.P.C. She is released on bail pending appeal disposal due to her age, 12-year custody, and minimal role compared to Mahendra. Conditions include personal bond, sureties, and annual court appearances.

What did the court decide?

Sentences suspended; accused released on bail with personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, conditioned on annual appearances.

Saroj @ Babu Devi Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/010835]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 262/2023

¶4

Saroj @ Babu Devi W/o Mahendra Kumar, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Bishnoi R/o 6Jm Tehsil Anoopgarh Dist. Sriganganagar Raj. (Present Lodged In Central Jail Sri Ganganagar)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, P.P. Mr. S.R. Godara, for the complainant

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

19/04/2023

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentences.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already faced custody of twelve years including the period of remission. It is also submitted that main allegation is upon Mahendra. It is further submitted that name of the appellant was not shown in the parcha bayan. The appellant is a lady aged about 45 years and therefore, seeks suspension of sentence awarded to her.

¶15

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant have opposed the suspension of sentence application. Learned Public Prosecutor has furnished the custody report which

(2 of 3)

[2023/RJJD/010835]

[SOSA-262/2023]

shows that appellant is in custody for about twelve years including remission.

¶20

Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it seems from the record that main role is attributed to Mahendra and not against the appellant and considering the fact that appellant has faced the custody of twelve years including remission and also keeping into consideration the fact that the appellant/applicant is a 45 years old lady, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused appellant.

¶21

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 Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar vide judgment dated 30.09.2015 in Sessions Case No.12/2013 against the appellant-applicant Saroj @ Babu Devi W/o Mahendra Kumar shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and she shall be released on bail, provided she 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 her appearance in this court on 23.05.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶22

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

¶23

That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing

(3 of 3)

[2023/RJJD/010835]

[SOSA-262/2023]

his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

¶28

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.

¶29

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶30

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶31

25-Taruna/-

Saroj @ Babu Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj @ Babu Devi 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

Nand Singh Hajuri Vs State of Rajasthan

Roshan Singh Kharvad Vs District Collector, Rajsamand

Madhav Lal Ahir Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashi Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Amba Lal Vs State of Rajasthan