Allowed

Rakesh Kumar @ Kd v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Sept 2023SOSA/791/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appealed against conviction for cheating and forgery. High Court allowed suspension of sentence under Cr.P.C. 389 and granted bail pending appeal, drawing analogy to a coordinate bench decision regarding a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence suspended pending appeal; applicant released on bail in Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each subject to conditions of residence notification and quarterly appearances

Rakesh Kumar @ Kd Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:32063-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 791/2023

¶4

¶5

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.22/2023

¶6

Rakesh Kumar @ KD S/o Shri Ramphal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Mithi Morka,tehsil Shivani, District Bhiwani, Hariyana. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner)

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

		Versus
State Of Rajasthan,	Thro	ugh PP ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. B.R. Bishnoi,PP
For Complainant(s)	:	Mr. KuldeepSharma.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

¶10

Order

¶11

26/09/2023

¶12

The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 19.12.2022 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.1, Rajgarh, Distt. Churu in Sessions Case No.04/2018:

¶13

Offence	Sentence	Fine
364(A) IPC	Life Imprisonment	Rs.10,000/- and in default of which to further undergo three years’ additional imprisonment.
365 IPC	Seven years’ S.I.	Rs.5,000/- and in default of which to further undergo two years’ additional imprisonment.
392 IPC	Ten years’ R.I.	Rs.5,000/- and in default of which to further undergo two years’ R.I.

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[2023:RJ-JD:32063-DB]

¶16

[SOSA-791/2023]

¶17

341 IPC One month’s S.I. Rs.500/- and in default of which to further undergo seven days’ additional imprisonment.

¶18

The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal and for release of the applicant on bail.

¶19

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant that co-accused Ajay Kumar has been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.204/2023, decided on 10.07.2023 and that the case of the present applicant is not different from that of said Ajay Kumar, rather while the case qua Ajay Kumar was that he was known to the family of the abducted complainant, whereas, the applicant has no relation / acquaintance with the abducted complainant.

¶20

It is further submitted that the applicant is in custody for over 5 years 10 months, the appeal is likely to take sufficiently long time and therefore, the sentence awarded to the applicantappellant be suspended.

¶21

Learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made. It was submitted that the trial court has found the applicant guilty of the offences based on the evidence available on record and looking to the heinous nature of offence, the application be dismissed.

¶22

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. 7. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar (supra), on noticing that no person was named by the complainant

¶23

[2023:RJ-JD:32063-DB]

¶24

[SOSA-791/2023]

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

in the FIR though PW-1 & PW-2 have known the families of the applicant therein and as such, there was no reason for not disclosing his name.

¶27

Once, this aspect has come on record that the family of Ajay Kumar was known to the family of the complainant and even said Ajay Kumar was not named, there cannot be any reason for not extending the benefit as extended to Ajay Kumar by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, as there are no additional overt act alleged against the applicant.

¶28

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of the appellant-applicant Rakesh Kumar @ K.D. S/o Ramphal, during the pendency of the appeal.

¶29

Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that substantive sentence passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No.1, Rajgarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No.04/2018 against the appellant-applicant Rakesh Kumar @ K.D. S/o Shri Ramphal 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/- each with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 30/10/2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

[2023:RJ-JD:32063-DB]

¶32

[SOSA-791/2023]

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

Similarly, if the sureties change his address(s) he will give in writing his changed address to the trial court.

¶36

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

¶37

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶38

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶39

51-Rmathur/-

Rakesh Kumar @ Kd v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar @ Kd 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

Revant Ram @ Rati Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Pokar Ram Vs Doli Banam Mandir Shri Mahadevji (Jaikalnath)

Babu Lal Meghwal Vs Shri Sandeep Kumar Varma and Ors.

Kana Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Vishnoi Vs Rajasthan High Court

Ram Lal Nayak Vs the State of Rajasthan