Dismissed

Babu Lal Son of Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 Jul 2023SOSA/72/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the application for suspension of sentence. It treated a delay condonation application as disposed. The court rejected the suspension plea based on witness statements, foot-marks report, and FSL report despite the accused's claim of an unestablished case.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence is dismissed. Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is treated as disposed.

Babu Lal Son of Mohan Lal 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 No.

¶3

72/2023

¶4

¶5

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 6/2023

¶6

Babu Lal Son Of Mohan Lal, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Chak Manoharpur Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur (Raj) (At Present Confined In The Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Kumar Saini, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rekha Madnani, AGA. Mr. Suresh Gurjar, Adv.

¶12

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

¶13

Order

¶14

25/07/2023

¶15

Since the matter has been admitted, the delay in filing of the appeal, automatically stands condoned.

¶16

Application (15/2023) filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, be treated as disposed.

¶17

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

¶18

Heard on application for suspension of sentence.

¶19

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that case against the appellant is not established and he remained in custody for a period of about 4 years.

¶20

[SOSA-72/2023]

¶21

(2 of 2)

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant and learned Additional Government Advocate have opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that son of the deceased is the eye witness, who has seen the accused pulling the deceased. It is also contended that foot-marks of the accused were matching with the foot-marks found at the place where firearm was recovered at the instance of the accused which was serviceable.

¶23

We have considered the contentions.

¶24

Considering the statement of PW-1 & PW-2; the foot-marks report and the FSL report, we are not inclined to entertain the present application for suspension of sentence, hence, the same is dismissed.

¶25

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶26

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶27

Keshav/21

Babu Lal Son of Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Lal Son of Mohan Lal 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

Sameer Khan Son of Sirajuddin Vs State of Rajasthan

Banwari Lal S/O Sh. Madho Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Manju S/O Shankar Lal D/O Sanwarmal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ajay Ghos Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

State of Raj. Vs Shiv Narayan @ Guddu Yadav

Monu @ Shyam Singh S/O Shri Sher Singh Vs State of Rajasthan