Allowed

Ganpatlal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Apr 2023SOSA/418/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed applications for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. filed by two appellants convicted of murder and other offences. The court ordered their release on bail pending appeal, citing prolonged custody of over eight years and lack of immediate hearing prospects, without adjudicating legal merits.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended; appellants released on bail subject to executing personal bond of Rs.50,000 each with sureties of Rs.25,000 each each.

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

¶1

[2023/RJJD/010135]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)

¶4

No. 728/2022

¶5

¶6

D.B.Criminal Appeal No. 113/2022

¶7

Sunil @ Pintu S/o Himmat Lal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Society Nagar, Bhagat Singh Colony, P.s. Industrial Area, Pali, Raj. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Pali).

¶8

----Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

Connected With

¶13

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)

¶14

No. 418/2022

¶15

¶16

D.B.Criminal Appeal No. 73/2022

¶17

Ganpatlal S/o Bhikharam, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Mandali, Tehsil And District Pali. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Bikaner)

¶18

----Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶21

----Respondent

¶22

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Singh. Mr. Ajay Vyas. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R.Chhaparwal, P.P.

¶23

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

¶24

Order

¶25

13/04/2023

¶26

The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 30/4/2022 passed by the learned

¶27

(2 of 5)

¶28

[2023/RJJD/010135]

¶29

[SOSA-728/2022 & 418/2022]

¶30

Addl. Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No. 74/2015 (CIS No. 54/2015):

¶31

Offences	Sentence	Fine
302/34 IPC	Life Imprisonment	Rs.1,00,000/- each and in default of which to further undergo oneyear S.I.
394/34 IPC	10 years S.I.	Rs.50,000/- each and in default of which to further undergo six months S.I.
460 IPC	10 years S.I.	Rs.50,000/- each and in default of which to further undergo six months S.I.
3/25 Arms Act	Two years S.I.	Rs.2000/- each and in default of which to further undergo two months S.I.

¶32

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

¶33

Leaned counsel for the appellants-applicants made submissions that the complainant Smt. Kistu got her statement recorded, wherein, she specially indicated that those who entered the house and gave beating to her, her niece and her father-in-law were wearing black clothes and their faces were covered. However, in her statement as P.W.1, she improved her version and indicated that while giving beating the cloth from their faces came down and she saw the faces. Further, relevant witness; P.W.4 – Narayan Singh, P.W.20 – Bishan Singh and P.W.28 – Dalpat Das Vaishnav, who came at the site after the incident had indicated that the offence was committed by unknown persons/ thief. It was submitted that the accused appellant Ganpat Lal is cousin of husband of said Kistu and in case she had seen him committing

¶34

[2023/RJJD/010135]

¶35

[SOSA-728/2022 & 418/2022]

¶36

(3 of 5)

¶37

offence, as claimed by her in her statement, she would have specifically took his name in the statement before the police (Ex.P.1) and would have told the same to P.W.4, P.W.20 and P.W.28.

¶38

Further submissions have been made that in the identification parade, Pooja, niece of Kistu did not identify accused Ganpat Lal and only identified accused Sunil and Kistu identified both Ganpat Lal and Sunil.

¶39

Submissions have been made that in her cross examination, Pooja, P.W.5, specifically indicated that the police personnel identified the accused and told them to identify them. 6. It is submitted that the involvement of the appellants is highly improbable inasmuch as in case Ganpat Lal was involved, the complainant Kistu would have specifically taken his name in the statement before the police and before the other witnesses, who came at the site immediately after the incident and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to be released on bail.

¶40

Further submissions have been made that the appellantsapplicants have already remained in custody for over 08 years and, therefore, also their sentences be suspended and they be released on bail as the hearing of the appeal is likely to take sufficiently long time. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently contested the submissions. It was submitted that as Smt. Kistu has seen the accused and has identified them during the identification parade and that recovery of cash has been made from the accused, the applications deserve dismissal.

¶41

[2023/RJJD/010135]

¶42

[SOSA-728/2022 & 418/2022]

¶43

(4 of 5)

¶44

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, in view of the fact that appellants are in custody for over 08 years and the fact that hearing of the appeal is unlikely in near future, without making any observations on merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellants-applicants Sunil @ Pintu s/o Himmat Lal and Ganpat Lal s/o Bhikharam during the pendency of the appeal.

¶45

Accordingly, the instant applications for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pali in Case No. 74/2015 (CIS No. 54/2015) against the appellantsapplicants Sunil @ Pintu and Ganpat Lal 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 16/5/2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:

¶46

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

¶47

That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶48

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

¶49

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 accused-

¶50

[2023/RJJD/010135]

¶51

[SOSA-728/2022 & 418/2022]

¶52

(5 of 5)

¶53

applicants 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-applicants do not appear before the trial court, learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶54

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶55

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶56

28-29-baweja/-

Ganpatlal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpatlal 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

Aamdeen Vs State

Arif Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Teeta Vs State

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Rupa Ram Vs State of Rajasthan