Allowed

Shankar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 May 2023SOSA/423/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants a suspension of sentence to seven appellants convicted under Section 148 IPC and allied sections. The High Court held it was a fit case for suspension as the appellants were on bail during trial and the appeal hearing would take time, allowing them to be released on personal bonds until the appeal's disposal.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence passed in Sessions Case No.42/14 (181/2013) granted with release on personal bond in Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/each.

Shankar Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B.. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.423/2023

¶3

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 519/2023

¶5

Shankar S/o Puniya @ Paniya, Aged About 57 Years, Khedi, P.s. Parsola, Dist. Pratapgarh (Raj.).

¶6

Gattu @ Gatiya @ Gattulal S/o Rupa, Aged About 28 Years, Khedi, P.s. Parsola, Dist. Pratapgarh (Raj.).

¶7

Rajmal S/o Dhuliya, Aged About 30 Years, Khedi, P.s. Parsola, Dist. Pratapgarh (Raj.).

¶8

Manmal S/o Rupa, Aged About 28 Years, Khedi, P.s. Parsola, Dist. Pratapgarh (Raj.).

¶9

Lalu @ Laliya S/o Puniya @ Paniya, Aged About 38 Years, Khedi, P.s. Parsola, Dist. Pratapgarh (Raj.).

¶10

Pawan S/o Kacharu, Aged About 29 Years, Khedi, P.s. Parsola, Dist. Pratapgarh (Raj.).

¶11

Rama @ Ramlal S/o Puniya @ Paniya, Aged About 41 Years, Khedi, P.s. Parsola, Dist. Pratapgarh (Raj.).

¶12

----Appellants

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuj Sahlot For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, AGA

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶18

Order

¶19

04/05/2023

¶20

The instant application for suspension of sentence has been moved on behalf of the applicants in the matter of judgment dated 06.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (SC/ST Cases), Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No.42/14 (181/2013) whereby they were convicted and sentenced suffer maximum imprisonment of two years' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 148 of

¶21

[SOSA-423/2023]

¶22

(2 of 3)

¶23

IPC and lesser punishment for the other offences under Sections 341/149 and 323/149 of 1PC.

¶24

It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal and factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be appreciated again by this court being the first appellate Court. They were on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted to them; hearing of the appeal is likely to take long time, therefore, the application for suspension of sentence may be granted.

¶25

Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused-applicant for releasing the appellant on application for suspension of sentence. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the facts that the accused-appellants were on bail during the course of trial and the hearing of appeal is likely to take further more time and considering the overall submissions while refraining from passing any comments on the niceties of the matter and the defects of the prosecution as the same may put an adverse effect on hearing of the appeal, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants.

¶26

[SOSA-423/2023]

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (SC/ST Cases), Pratapgarh who passed the impugned order dated 06.04.2023 in Sessions Case No.42/14 (181/2013) against the appellant-applicants- Shankar S/o Puniya @ Paniya, Gattu @ Gatiya @ Gattulal S/o Rupa, Rajmal S/o Dhuliya, Manmal S/o Rupa, Lalu @ Laliya S/o Puniya @ Paniya, Pawan S/o Kacharu, Rama @ Ramlal S/o Puniya @ Paniya shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail provided each of them execute 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 their appearance in this court on 05.06.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶29

That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed addresses to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶30

Similarly, if the sureties change their addresses, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

¶31

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶32

8-divya/-

Shankar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar 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

Mahendra Sharma Vs Satyanarayan

Bharat Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Kumar Vs Manak Chand

Naveen Kumar Vs State

Prabhu Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahmat Ali Vs State of Rajasthan