Allowed

Amba Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Apr 2023SOSA/777/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court suspended the sentences awarded to the appellant in Sessions Case No. 12/2018 and ordered his release on bail. Relying on a coordinate bail order, the Court upheld the argument that key witnesses were hostile and clothing the case for appeal, directing the appellant to furnish a personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

The sentences passed against the appellant shall be suspended till the final disposal of the appeal. He is granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Amba Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/010842]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 777/2022

¶4

Amba Lal S/o Shri Partha Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Pavi Ka Bhilwara, Kelwara Police Station, District Rajsamand. (Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.V.S. Deora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, GA cum AAG with Mr. Pallave Sharma

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

19/04/2023

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentences.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant has shown the bail order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No.8015/2019 (Ambalal Vs. State of Rajasthan) decided on 21.08.2019. The order dated 21.08.2019 reads as under:-

¶15

“The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 145/2017, Police Station Kelwara, District Rajsamand for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.

[2023/RJJD/010842]

[SOSA-777/2022]

(2 of 4)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶20

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on 02.08.2018 with a liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording the statements of Leela and Javli. He further submits that the statements of Javli and Leela have been recorded before the learned trial court as P.W. 4 and P.W. 6, respectively. Both the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and thus, have been declared hostile. Learned counsel further submits that there is no other evidence on record against the petitioner. The petitioner has suffered the incarceration for more than one and half years. The conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.

¶22

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶23

Accordingly, the second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner – Ambalal S/o Partharam shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.145/2017, Police Station Kelwara, District Rajsamand provided he furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. ”

[2023/RJJD/010842]

[SOSA-777/2022]

(3 of 4)

Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that a bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that the two key witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. The judgment passed by the learned trial court and the record do not indicate any meeting out of the situation, which could justify the continuance of the custody of the applicantappellant in this case at this stage.

¶28

Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as also taking into consideration the aforementioned bail order, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused appellant.

¶29

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand vide judgment dated 26.04.2022 in Sessions Case No.12/2018 against the appellant-applicant Amba Lal S/o Shri Partha Ram 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 23.05.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶30

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

¶31

That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/010842]

[SOSA-777/2022]

his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

¶36

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/were 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(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶37

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶38

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶39

18-Taruna/-

Amba Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amba 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nand Singh Hajuri Vs State of Rajasthan

Roshan Singh Kharvad Vs District Collector, Rajsamand

Madhav Lal Ahir Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashi Vs State of Rajasthan

Saroj @ Babu Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikram Vs the State of Rajasthan