Allowed

Santu S/O Maniram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Jun 2023SOSA/454/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for suspension of sentence. Considering the applicant had been in custody for about six years without remission and the case involved circumstantial evidence, the court granted relief without commenting on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence allowed; accused to furnish personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each.

Santu S/O Maniram Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 454/2023

¶3

¶4

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.319/2022

¶5

Santu S/o Maniram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Dokiya, Police Station Baitul (Madhya Pradesh), At Present Hali Sukhlal S/o Mangila, R/o Sanwar P.S. Taleda Dist.. Bundi Rajasthan (At Present In Central Jail Kota)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through The PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaswant Singh Rathor, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Smt. Alka Bhatnagar, AGA.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶12

Order

¶13

01/06/2023

¶14

Victim has been intimated about filing of the appeal as well as application for suspension of sentence.

¶15

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the applicant.

¶16

Accused-applicant has preferred this application for suspension of sentence.

¶17

Heard on application for suspension of sentence.

¶18

It is contended by Amicus Curaie-Mr. Jaswant Singh Rathore appearing for the applicant that the applicant has remained in custody for a period of about 6 years without remission. It is contended that the case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is also

¶19

[SOSA-454/2023]

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

contended that none of the witnesses have deposed against the applicant and there is no last seen evidence.

¶22

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.

¶23

We have considered the contentions.

¶24

Considering the fact that the applicant has remained in custody for a period of about 6 years; the case rests on circumstantial evidence, without commenting on merits of the case, we deem it proper to allow the application for suspension of sentence.

¶25

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-applicant in Sessions Case No.199/2017, shall remain suspended if the accused-applicant furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/-each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court to the effect that he shall appear before this Court as and when called upon to do so.

¶26

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Authorities with intimation to the accused-applicant.

¶27

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶28

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶29

Keshav/23

Santu S/O Maniram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santu S/O Maniram 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

State Vs Amar Singh

State of Raj. Vs Abdul Raoof

State of Rajasthan Vs Madan Lal and Anr.

Ishwar @ Kankata S/O Shri Hargyan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ved Rathore S/O Shri Harikishan Rathore Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Lal S/O Vijay Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan