Allowed

Vikaram Son of Shri Chain Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Jul 2023SOSA/652/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed suspension of sentence applications filed by six accused applicants in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.109/2021. Court considered procedural irregularities, bail history of co-accused, and lack of weapon recovery from applicants, ordering them to furnish bonds.

What did the court decide?

Applications for suspension of sentence allowed subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Vikaram Son of Shri Chain Singh 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

¶3

No.652/2023

¶4

¶5

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.109/2021

¶6

Vikram Son Of Shri Chain Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Arniya, P.S. Unhel, District Jhalawar (Raj.) (Appellant Presently Confined In Central Jail, Tonk)

¶7

----Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

Connected With

¶12

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application

¶13

No.350/2023

¶14

¶15

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.109/2021

¶16

Manohar Son Of Shri Chandiya alias Chandimal, Resident of Village Arniya, P.S. Unhel, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶17

Shri Narayan Son Of Shri Bahadur alias Madariya, Resident of Village Arniya, P.S. Unhel, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶18

Sanwala Son of Shri Amar Singh, Resident of Village Arniya, P.S. Unhel, District Jhalawar (Raj.) (Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶19

----Applicants

¶20

Versus

¶21

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶22

----Respondent

¶23

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application

¶24

No.653/2023

¶25

¶26

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.109/2021

¶27

Gordhan Son Of Shri Hadmat, aged about 32 years, Resident of Village Arniya, P.S. Unhel, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶28

(2 of 3)

¶29

[SOSA-652/2023]

¶30

(Appellant Presently Confined In Central Jail, Tonk)

¶31

----Applicant

¶32

Versus

¶33

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶34

----Respondent

¶35

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Prateek Sharma, Adv.
	Mr. Ajay Singh Yaduvanshi, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Imran Khan, Dy. G.A.
	Mr. Manoj Ojla, Adv.

¶36

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

¶37

Order

¶38

18/07/2023

¶39

Accused-applicants have preferred these applications for suspension of sentence.

¶40

Heard on applications for suspension of sentence.

¶41

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that initially a charge-sheet was filed against 5 persons; matter was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. against 7 persons and in the initial charge-sheet, accused were not arrayed. It is also contended that sentence of one of the co-accused has been suspended by the High Court; all the accused except Vikram were on bail during trial; there is no recovery of any weapon of offence from the present accused-applicants; there is no identification of the articles which were recovered at their instance and disposal of appeal is bound to take time.

¶42

Learned Deputy Government Advocate and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the applications for suspension of sentence.

¶43

(3 of 3) [SOSA-652/2023]

¶44

It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that empty shells were recovered from the spot; the accused were identified in the Test Identification Parade and articles were recovered at their instance.

¶45

We have considered the contentions.

¶46

Taking note of the fact that initially as per the complaint, there were 5 to 6 persons, who committed the offence; Police has also submitted charge-sheet only against 5 persons, subsequently after lapse of 2 years, 7 other persons were arrayed as accused in this case and also taking note of the fact that no weapon of offence was recovered from any of the present accused-applicants and except Vikram, all the accused were on bail during trial and Vikram has also remained in custody for more than 9 years. Sentence of the co-accused Kalu was suspended by the Apex Court and sentence of the co-accused Arjun was also suspended by this Court, we deem it proper to allow the applications for suspension of sentence.

¶47

Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence are allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-applicants in Sessions Case No.5/2018 (31/2012) (CIS No.5/2018) shall remain suspended if each of them 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 each of them shall appear before this Court as and when called upon to do so.

¶48

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶49

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶50

Keshav/21-23

Vikaram Son of Shri Chain Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikaram Son of Shri Chain Singh 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

Ramveer S/O Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan

Pintu S/O Kamal Vs State of Rajasthan

Waseem S/O Shaukat Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Suresh Kumar S/O Shri Mangilal

Suresh Kumar Son of Shri Mangilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramdev S/O Sh. Ramjivan Vs State of Rajasthan