Allowed

Prince @ Harjindar Singh Son of Shri Surjeet Singh Sikh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Jan 2023SOSA/637/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this suspension of sentence application, the High Court allowed the request to suspend the rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant for offences under IPC 376, 366, and 363 pending the final disposal of his appeal. The appellant was released on bail upon executing a personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Sentence allowed to be suspended till final disposal of appeal; appellant released on a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Prince @ Harjindar Singh Son of Shri… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B.CriminalMisc.Suspension of Sentence Application

¶3

No.637/2022

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 895/2022

¶6

Prince @ Harjindar Singh Son Of Shri Surjeet Singh Sikh, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of 164/166, Sector -16, Pratap Nagar, Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (Raj) (At Present In Central Jail Kota)

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Anshuman Saxena
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mangal Singh Saini,PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶13

Order

¶14

02/01/2023

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned Public Proseuctor on the application for suspension of sentence and perused the judgment impugned dated 12.04.2022 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act 2012and Commission for Child Rights Protection Act No.1 Kota(Raj.) in Sessions Case No.171/2018 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC and has been sentenced with maximum of ten years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-,under Section 366 IPC and has been sentence with maximum of ten years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- as well as under Section 363 IPC

¶16

(2 of 4) [SOSA-637/2022]

¶17

and has been sentence with maximum of four years imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- .

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix was all over a consenting party and she joined the association of the appellant at her own free will and volition which very much reflects from her statement recorded under Section 164CR.P.C during investigation which has taken into consideration as Ex.P7. She roamed with him at various places but did not seek any help or any assistance from any person which further fortifies the contention that she was a consenting party. Learned counsel submits that the documents produced on behalf of the prosecution to establish that the age of the prosecutrix was to be below 18 years are not sacrosanct pieces of evidence. No endeavour has been made to collect the evidence from the school first attended. A serious objection has been raised with regard to the fact of her age being below 18 years at the relevant point of time. It is submitted that he has served 3 years 10 months. The trial would take take time to conclude. Further incarceration of the appellant would not be justifiable. He was on bail during the entire course of trial but the liberty was never misused. Therefore, the application for suspension of sentence may be granted.

¶19

Learned counsel for the public prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the accusedappellant for releasing the appellant on application for suspension of sentence.

¶20

Considering the overall submissions of the parties and looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case while refraining from passing any comments on the niceties of the

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

[SOSA-637/2022]

¶23

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-appellant.

¶24

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 Special Judge, POCSO Act 2012 and Commission for Child Rights Protection Act No.1 Kota(Raj.) vide judgment dated 12.4.2022 in Sessions Case No.171/2018 against the appellant-applicant-Prince @ Harjindar Singh 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/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 13.02.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶25

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

¶26

That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶27

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

¶28

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 related to original case in which the accused-

¶29

(4 of 4) [SOSA-637/2022]

¶30

applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case, the said accused-applicant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶31

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶32

Anu/19

Prince @ Harjindar Singh Son of Shri Surjeet Singh Sikh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prince @ Harjindar Singh Son of Shri Surjeet Singh Sikh 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

Ajay Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Onkarnath Vs State of Rajasthan

Pooran Mal Tailor S/O Late Shankerlal Tailor Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahmudi W/O Ramjan Vs State of Rajasthan

Madan Tiwari S/O Shri Ghasi Tiwari Vs State of Rajasthan

Imran S/O Shamsher Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Jat Son of Dataram Vs State of Rajasthan