Allowed

Vrindavan Son of Bedariya v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Oct 2023SOSA/436/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants suspension of sentence and bail to the appellant pending the disposal of the criminal appeal. The Single Bench, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the conviction, allowed the application subject to personal bond and sureties, and fixed specific conditions for appearance and reporting.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended until disposal of appeal; application for suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. is allowed.

Vrindavan Son of Bedariya Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:31383]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 436/2022

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 633/2022

¶6

Vrindavan Son Of Bedariya, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Bhanpur, Police Station, Saray Chhola, District Murena (Madhya Pradesh) (Presently Confined In District Jail Dholpur)

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arpit Srivastava For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶13

Order

¶14

16/10/2023

¶15

The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred in pending appeal which was admitted on 16.03.2023 and aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 08.04.2022 in Sessions Case No.21/2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 304, 325, 323 IPC and sentenced accordingly.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that without observing principle of law learned trial court has arrived at a conclusion of conviction. He further submitted that learned trial court has overlooked material contradictions and discrepancies, which goes to root of the matter.

[2023:RJ-JP:31383]

[SOSA-436/2022]

(2 of 4)

He further submitted that the entire case of prosecution rests on testimony of interested witness and no independent witness was examined to corroborate the story of prosecution. He further submitted that this is a case of road traffic accident wherein due to negligence of tractor driver, accident took place. He also submitted that most of the eye-witnesses were either turned hostile or did not supported the prosecution. He also submitted that appellant had faced long trial wherein he was convicted under Section 304 IPC only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He also submitted the deposition of certain witnesses and submitted that learned trial court had failed to consider the fact that even owner of truck (PW-34) had turned hostile and did not supported the prosecution against the appellant. He also referred report Ex.P-1 to submit that appellant was neither named nor identified by any one. At last, he submitted that appellant was on bail during trial and was arrested after 12 days of the accident.

¶21

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶23

A perusal of record indicated that an FIR No. 307/2011 was registered against unnamed driver of truck No. RJ11GA5683. Present appellant was arrested on 24.08.2011 by memo Ex.P-14 wherein prosecution has submitted 34 witnesses and 112 documents. After trial, appellant was found guilty under Section 304, 325 and 323 IPC. The maximum punishment under Section 304 IPC was awarded as maximum imprisonment of 7 years. The

¶24

(3 of 4) [SOSA-436/2022]

¶25

[2023:RJ-JP:31383]

¶26

record further indicated that appellant was on bail during trial. We have considered the statement as referred by learned counsel for appellant and also the contradictions.

¶27

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. is allowed and sentence of appellant accused- Vrindavan Son Of Bedariya is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would 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 his appearance in this court on 02.04.2024 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶28

After release of appellant on bail, he will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that he is involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled.

¶29

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

¶30

That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶31

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

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JP:31383]

[SOSA-436/2022]

Misc. Application stands disposed of.

¶36

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶37

PREETI VALECHA /60

Vrindavan Son of Bedariya v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vrindavan Son of Bedariya 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

Harish Kumar Vs Purnima Lulla and Ors.

Sanjay Jalandhara Vs State of Raj Asthan through Pp and Anr.

Umraomal Chordia Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Makkhan Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Ramratan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Beena Devi W/O Shri Jagdish Saini B/C Mali Vs State of Rajasthan