Dismissed

Ajay Bairwa S/O Shri Jagannath v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 Nov 2023SOSA/597/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence application filed under Sections 439 A and 439 B CrPC by a petitioner already released on bail. The Hon'ble Court noted the applicant's circumstances remained similar to the previous order and saw no significant change. Accordingly, the court refused to allow the suspension of sentence.

What did the court decide?

The petition for suspension of sentence was dismissed.

Ajay Bairwa S/O Shri Jagannath Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal II Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 597/2023

¶3

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1859/2022

¶5

Ajay Bairwa S/o Shri Jagannath, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Prem Nagar Third Affordable Yojna Ke Pass, P.s. Udhyog Nagar, Kota City (Rajasthan) Accused At Present Confined In Jail Kota.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. B S Sharma, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

24/11/2023

¶14

vihykFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr izFke ltk LFkxu izkFkZuki= fnukad 19-10-2022 dks bl U;k;ky; }kjk fujLr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlds i'pkr~ vc iqu% ;g ltk LFkxu izkFkZuki= ¼f}rh;½ vihykFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA

¶15

izLrqr ltk LFkxu izkFkZuki= ¼f}rh;½ ij cgl lquh xbZA vihykFkhZ&vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 363] 366 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk o /kkjk 11¼iv½@12 ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2012 ds vkjksi esa nks"kfl) ,oa n.Mkfn"V djrs gq, vf/kdre ikap o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa ls yxHkx 16 ekg dh vof/k vfHk;qDr vfHkj{kk esa O;rhr dj pqdk gSA mudk rdZ gS fd /kkjk 164 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds fy, x, dFkuksa esa ihfM+rk us Li"Vr% dgk gS fd mldh eka mls MkVrh Fkh rFkk vt; ls ckr ugha djus nsrh Fkh] bl dkj.k ?kj NksM+dj og vt;

¶16

(2 of 3) [SOSA-597/2023]

¶17

ds lkFk xbZ Fkh vkSj vihykFkhZ&vfHk;qDr us mlds lkFk dksbZ xyr dke ugha fd;kA U;k;ky; ds dFku esa ihfM+rk us ;gh dgk gS fd vihykFkhZ&vfHk;qDr us mlds lkFk dksbZ xyr dke ugha fd;k gSA izdj.k esa esfMdy Hkh ugha gqvk gS rFkk ihfM+rk ds lkFk vfHk;qDr us dksbZ tcjnLrh ugha gqbZ gSA vfHk;qDr o ihfM+rk ds e/; izse laca/k FksA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd bl izdkj ds ekeyksa esa tgka ;qod o ;qorh ds e/; lgefr gks] mu izdj.kksa dks vU; izdj.kksa ls fHkUu j[kk tkuk pkfg,A vius rdZ ds leFkZu eas fuEu U;kf;d fofu'p; izLrqr fd;s&

¶18

Rakesh vs. State of M.P. M.Cr.C. No. 41304/2021 Dated 09.09.2021 High Court of M.P.

¶19

Praduman vs. State & Anr. Bail Appln. 2380/2021 Dated 05.10.2021 High Court of Delhi

¶20

mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd iwoZ esa vfHk;qDr dk ltk LFkxu izkFkZuki= fnukad 19-10-2022 dks fujLr gqvk Fkk] rc mls vfHkj{kk esa ek= rhu ekg gh gq, Fks] blds i'pkr~ vc yxHkx 13 ekg dh vof/k vkSj O;rhr gks pqdh gSA vihy ds fuLrkj.k esa le; yxsxkA ,slh fLFkfr esa vc ifjofrZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, mldk ltk LFkxu izkFkZuki= Lohdkj fd;k tkosA

¶21

blds foijhr ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd dk rdZ gS fd vfHk;qDr dks ikap o"kZ ds dkjkokl ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlesa ls ek= 16 ekg ds yxHkx gh mls vfHkj{kk esa gq, gSaA iwoZ esa mi;qZDr lHkh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ¼tks rdksZa esa of.kZr gSa½ dks ns[krs gq, gh vfHk;qDr dk ltk LFkxu izkFkZuki= fujLr fd;k x;k FkkA izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa dksbZ lkjoku~ ifjorZu ugha gqvk gSA vr% izLrqr ltk LFkxu izkFkZuki= ¼f}rh;½ fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZA

¶22

mHk;i{k ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k] i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;kA

¶23

vihykFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; us /kkjk 363] 366 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk o /kkjk 11¼iv½@12 ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2012 ds vkjksfir vijk/k esa nks"kfl) djrs gq, ikap o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k Fkk] ftlesa ls vihykFkhZ&vfHk;qDr vHkh rd ek= 16 ekg gh

¶24

(3 of 3) [SOSA-597/2023]

¶25

vfHkj{kk esa jgk gS ,oa dsoy blh vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZ&vfHk;qDr ltk LFkfxr djokus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA vihykFkhZ&vfHk;qDr ij vkjksfir vijk/k xEHkhj izd`fr dk gSA vihykFkhz&vfHk;qDr }kjk izLrqr izFke ltk LFkxu izkFkZuki= fnukad 19-10-2022 dks bl U;k;ky; }kjk fujLr fd;k x;k Fkk] tks xq.kkoxq.k ij fujLr fd;k x;k FkkA izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ,slk dksbZ lkjoku~ ifjorZu ugha gqvk gS] ftlls vihykFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dks tekur ij eqDr fd;k tkosA vr% mi;qZDr foospu dh jks'kuh esa vihykFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g ltk LFkxu izkFkZuki= ¼f}rh;½ Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSa

¶26

ifj.kker% vihykFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g ltk LFkxu izkFkZuki= ¼f}rh;½ fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA

¶27

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶28

AJAY KUMAR SINGHAL /02

Ajay Bairwa S/O Shri Jagannath v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Bairwa S/O Shri Jagannath 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Das Vs State

Ramesh Chandra Sharma and Others Vs Panchyat Shri Digamber Jain Mandir Trust

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rehana Alias Mona and Ors.

Ravi Balai Son of Shri Rajendra Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalit Kishore Vs State

The National Insurance Company Vs Pema Ram and Ors.