Allowed

Rahul v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 May 2023SOSA/552/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. granted bail to the appellant convicted in a murder case during the appeal pendency, subject to sureties and appearance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail pending appeal; sentence suspended on execution of bond with sureties.

What the court decided

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

¶1

[2023/RJJD/017656]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

AT JODHPUR

¶4

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 552/2023

¶5

¶6

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.47/2022

¶7

Rahul S/o Sh. Suresh Tamboli, aged about 29 years, R/o 39, Kolpol, Police Station Ghantaghar, Udaipur.

¶8

(Presently lodged at Central Jail, Udaipur)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

	----	Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. with Mr. Jagdish Singh.	Advocate
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal,PP.

¶13

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

¶14

Order

¶15

26/05/2023

¶16

The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur, in Session Case No.41/2018 (C.I.S. No.285/2018):

¶17

Offences	Sentence	Fine
302/149 IPC	Life Imprisonment	Rs.50,000/- and in default of which to further undergo six month’s additional S.I.
147 IPC	Two Years’ simple imprisonment	Rs.5,000/- and in default of which to further undergo six months’ additional simple imprisonment

(2 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/017656]

[SOSA-552/2023]

148 IPC	Three Years’ simple imprisonment	Rs.2,000/- and in default of which to further undergo six months’ additional simple imprisonment.
452/149 IPC	Five Years’ simple imprisonment	Rs.2,000/- and in default of which to further undergo six months’ additional simple imprisonment.
307/149 IPC	Ten Years’ simple imprisonment	Rs.5,000/- and in default of which to further undergo six months’ additional simple 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 that coconvict, namely, Babulal and Dilip Nakwal, against whom the allegations similar to that of applicant were made, have been granted bail while suspending their substantive sentence in D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) Nos.500/2022 and 257/2022 on 17.04.2023 and that the role of the applicant alleged, is not more than what was alleged against the said co-convict.

¶24

Submissions have been made that the applicant was on bail during the course of trial and he is now in custody since the date of conviction i.e. 25.02.2022. Further submissions have been made that the applicant was granted temporary bail on 06.04.2023 and he has surrendered in time and during the currency of interim bail, his conduct has been reported to be satisfactory and, therefore, the substantive sentence awarded to the applicant may be suspended, as the final hearing of the appeal is likely to take long time.

[2023/RJJD/017656]

[SOSA-552/2023]

(3 of 4)

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It was submitted that looking to the offences the applicant is not entitled to grant of bail, however, it is not dispute that the allegations against the applicant are not different as was alleged against co-convict, Babulal and Dilip Nakwal, whose substantive sentence have been been suspended.

¶29

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- Rahul S/o Sh. Suresh Tamboli, during the pendency of the appeal.

¶30

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 Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur in Session Case No.41/2018 (C.I.S. No.285/2018) against the appellant-applicant- Rahul S/o Sh. Suresh Tamboli, 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:

¶31

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

¶32

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

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/017656]

[SOSA-552/2023]

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

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶40

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶41

72-DJ/-

Rahul v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Rahul 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

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