Allowed

Girraj @ Gulla Son of Hardan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Sept 2023SOSA/742/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application for suspension of sentence. It held that since similarly situated co-accused had their sentences suspended, and the applicant had been in custody for nearly nine years, the application would be granted upon furnishing a bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Third application for suspension of sentence allowed; bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each required.

Girraj @ Gulla Son of Hardan Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:23608-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc. Third Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 742/2022

¶4

¶5

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.433/2017

¶6

Girraj @ Gulla Son Of Hardan, R/o Baberi, Police Station Bansur, District Alwar (Raj.). (Accused Appellant Is Confined In Central Jail, Alwar).

¶7

----Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat For Respondent(s) : Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, Addl. G.A. Mr. Anil Choudhary on behalf of Mr. S.S. Ola (for Complainant/Victim)

¶12

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

¶13

Order

¶14

18/09/2023

¶15

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

¶16

Heard on third application for suspension of sentence.

¶17

It is contended by counsel appearing for the accusedapplicant that applications for suspension of sentence of similarly situated co-accused have been allowed by the Courts. It is also contended that applicant has remained in custody for a period of more than nine years and disposal of appeal is bound to take time.

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[2023:RJ-JP:23608-DB]

¶20

[SOSA-742/2022]

¶21

Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as counsel appearing for the complainant/victim have opposed the third application for suspension of sentence.

¶22

We have considered the contentions.

¶23

Considering the facts that applications for suspension of sentence of similarly situated co-accused have already been allowed by the Courts; that applicant has remained in custody for a period of nine years and seven months; that disposal of appeal will take time, we deem it proper to allow the third application for suspension of sentence.

¶24

Accordingly, the third application for suspension of sentence is allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused applicant in Sessions Case No.132/2011 shall remain suspended if the accused-applicant 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 he shall appear before this Court as and when called upon to do so.

¶25

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶26

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶27

AMIT/11

Girraj @ Gulla Son of Hardan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girraj @ Gulla Son of Hardan 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

Avendra Kumar Bhardwaj S/O Bharmanand Bhardwaj Vs Kamlesh Kumar Sharma S/O Late Satyanarayan

Peetam Singh Son of Bhagwant Vs State of Rajasthan

Durgalal S/O Shri Bansilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Manraj Son of Heeralal Vs State of Rajasthan

Aadil Choudhary S/O Shri Aalam Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish S/O Shri Nathulal Vs State of Rajasthan