Allowed

Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 May 2023SOSA/403/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. during pendency of criminal appeal. Appellant released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, subject to appearance before trial court and other conditions.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of substantive sentence allowed; released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

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

¶1

[2023/RJJD/017800]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

AT JODHPUR

¶4

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 403/2023

¶5

¶6

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.34/2023

¶7

Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Bala Ram, aged about 45 Years, R/o Village Rampuriya, P.S. Deogarh, District Pratapgarh (Rajasthan)

¶8

(Presently lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal,PP.

¶14

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

¶15

Order

¶16

26/05/2023

¶17

The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 08.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, in Session Case No.09/2023 (52/2023):

¶18

Offences	Sentence	Fine
341 IPC	One Month’s Simple Imprisonment	Rs.500/- and in default of which to further undergo seven days’ additional S.I.
323/34 IPC	One Year’s rigorous imprisonment	Rs.1,000/- and in default of which to further undergo fifteen days’ additional rigorous imprisonment

¶19

[2023/RJJD/017800]

¶20

[SOSA-403/2023]

¶21

2023/RJJD/017800]	(2 of 4)	[SOSA-403/2023
324 IPC	Three Years’ rigorous imprisonment	Rs.2,000/- and in default of which to further undergo one month’s additional rigorous imprisonment.
325/34 IPC	Seven Years’ rigorous imprisonment	Rs.5,000/- and in default of which to further undergo two months’ additional rigorous imprisonment.
307 IPC	Life Imprisonment	Rs.25,000/- and in default of which to further undergo six months’ additional rigorous imprisonment.

¶22

The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for release on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

¶23

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted with reference to statements of Medical Officer PW.9- Dr. Pramod Jaiman, PW.11- Dr. O.P. Dayma coupled with X-ray (Exhibit-P/14) and final opinion of the doctor (Exhibit-D/4) that the injured had suffered fracture on his hand and leg, which are not vital parts of the body. PW.11- Dr. O.P. Dayma, admitted in his crossexamination that he had only expressed possibility of fracture likely to be fatal to his life.

¶24

Submissions have been made that other co-convict, namely, Bala Ram and Pushpendra @ Pushkar have been granted bail while suspending their sentence in D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.126/2023 by order dated 17.04.2023. Submissions have been made though it is alleged against the applicant that he was brandishing a sword, no sword has been recovered and what has been allegedly recovered, is a knife and as such, the entire story being false, the conviction is

[2023/RJJD/017800]

[SOSA-403/2023]

(3 of 4)

baseless. Further submissions have been made that the applicant was on bail during trial and the final hearing of the appeal is likely to take long time.

¶29

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advance and submitted that as the recovery has been made from the applicant, he is not entitled to bail, however, it is not disputed that the injuries are on not on vital parts.

¶30

Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and after carefully scrutinizing the record of the case, without making any observations on merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of the appellantapplicant- Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Bala Ram, during the pendency of the appeal.

¶31

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 Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Session Case No.09/2023 (52/2023) against the appellant-applicant- Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Bala 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/- each with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his 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:

¶32

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

¶33

That if the applicant change the place of residence, he will give in writing their changed address

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/017800]

[SOSA-403/2023]

to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶38

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

¶39

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 relating 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 been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial court. In case the said accused-applicant do not appear before the trial court, learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶40

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶41

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶42

24-DJ/-

Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohan 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

Mohan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Om Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan