Allowed

Arfi Khan @ Kau v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Nov 2023SOSA/802/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court suspended the sentences awarded to two appellants convicted under Sections 148, 365, and 302/149 IPC, pending the disposal of their appeal. The suspension is subject to the execution of a personal bond with sureties and strict conditions regarding appearance and address changes.

What did the court decide?

The substantive sentence under Ss. 148, 365, and 302/149 IPC awarded in Sessions Case No.132/2017 is suspended subject to personal bond and conditional attendance.

Arfi Khan @ Kau Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:37444-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 802/2023

¶4

Arif Khan @ Kalu S/o Shrawan Khan @ Sarwar, Aged About 36 Years, Dukosi, P.s. Sadar, Dist. Nagaur. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Ajmer).

¶5

Nawab Khan S/o Alim Khan, Aged About 32 Years, Dukosi, P.s. Sadar, Dist. Nagaur. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Ajmer).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sunil Kumar Mehta Mr. Sammer Khan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. B. R. Bishnoi, PP Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

¶12

Order

¶13

02/11/2023

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for suspension of sentence.

¶15

The instant application for suspension of sentence has been preferred by the appellant-applicant, who has been convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur vide judgment dated 19.06.2023 in Sessions Case No.132/2017. The appellant-applicant has been sentenced as under :-

¶16

Offence U/s	Sentence	Fine	Sentence in default of
			payment of fine

¶17

(2 of 5)

¶18

[2023:RJ-JD:37444-DB]

¶19

[SOSA-802/2023]

¶20

148 IPC	2 Years R.I.	Rs.5,000/-	Six months S.I.
365 IPC	5 Years R.I.	Rs.10,000/-	Six Months S.I.
302/149 IPC	Life Imprisonment	Rs.20,000/-	One year S.I.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has argued that the trial court has grossly erred in sentencing and convicting the appellant-applicant vide impugned judgment. Learned counsel while inviting attention of this Court towards the FIR (Ex.-P/1) has argued that in the said FIR, the appellants have not been named by the complainant. It is further submitted that for the first time, name of the appellants were introduced by two so-called eye witnesses - Mohd. Hussain (PW-2) and Mohd. Sahid on 5.12.2016 in their police statement. It is further submitted that another eye witness namely Mohd. Ali (PW-3) has named the appellants in his police statement on 14.12.2016.

¶22

Learned counsel while inviting our attention towards the statement of Mohd. Hussain (PW-2) has argued that the said witness, in his evidence, has specifically stated that before registering FIR on the basis of written report filed by complainant Mohd. Iqbal (PW-1), the police has read over the complaint to the complainant and thereafter has registered the FIR. Learned counsel has further submitted that when in the written report, on the basis of which, FIR has been registered, wherein names of the appellants were not there, then, it is clear that they have been falsely implicated after deliberations. It is also submitted that the trial court has not taken into consideration this aspect of the

¶23

(3 of 5)

¶24

[2023:RJ-JD:37444-DB]

¶25

[SOSA-802/2023]

¶26

matter and has illegally passed the impugned judgment.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as a matter of fact, Ex.-P/1 is not the only FIR, however, prior to that from the statement of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the police was already in receipt of information of the incident, however, no FIR was registered on the said complaint and later on, the FIR has been lodged on their written complaint filed by Mohd. Iqbal (PW-1), wherein the appellants have not been named as accused.

¶28

It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to produced reliable and cogent evidence to prove the guilt of the appellants and the trial court, without considering the said aspect, has illegally passed the impugned judgment, wherein it has convicted and sentenced the appellants.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the conditions of the bail.

¶30

It is also submitted that the appellants are in jail since long and hearing of the appeal is likely to take time.

¶31

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed this application for suspension of sentence.

¶32

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and without making any observation on the merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the

¶33

[SOSA-802/2023]

¶34

[2023:RJ-JD:37444-DB]

¶35

(4 of 5)

¶36

appellants.

¶37

Accordingly, this application for suspension of sentence filed under Sec.389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur vide judgment dated 19.06.2023 in Sessions Case No.132/2017 against appellant - Arif Khan @ Kalu S/o Shrawan Khan @ Sarwar and Nawab Khan S/o Alim Khan shall remain suspended till final disposal of the appeal, provided each of them 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 their appearance in this Court on 18.12.2023 and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶38

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

¶39

That if the appellant 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.

¶40

Similarly, if the sureties change their address, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

¶41

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-

¶42

(5 of 5)

¶43

[2023:RJ-JD:37444-DB]

¶44

[SOSA-802/2023]

¶45

appellant was 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-appellant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶46

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶47

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶48

39-Arun/-

Arfi Khan @ Kau v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arfi Khan @ Kau 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

Heeralal Vs State of Rajasthan

Lakhmaram @ Laxman Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Baljindra Kaur Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Kumar @ Khushu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishan @ Bablu Vs State of Rajasthan

Devaram Vs State of Rajasthan