Allowed

Mahendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Aug 2023SOSA/876/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur allowed an application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. The court held it as a fit case to suspend the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment awarded under the POCSO Act until the final disposal of the appeal, subject to the execution of a personal bond with sureties and adherence to specific conditions regarding residence and appea

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended till final disposal of appeal; release on bail with execution of Rs.50,000 bond with sureties.

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.876/2023

¶3

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1423/2023

¶5

Mahendra Kumar S/o Nawaram, Aged About 23 Years, Mandwa, P.s. Kotwali Sirohi, Dist. Sirohi (Raj.)

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

Pawani W/o Ramlalji, Mandwa, P.s. Mandwa, Dist. Sirohi (Raj.).

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. JVS Deora For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, P.P.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶13

Order

¶14

11/08/2023

¶15

The instant application for suspension of sentence has been moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment dated 11.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, District – Sirohi in Special Sessions Case No.26/2022 (CIS No.26/2022) whereby he was convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment of three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 7/8 of POCSO Act and lesser punishment for the other offence under Section 11(iv)/12 of the POCSO Act.

¶16

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal and factual

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be appreciated again by this court being the first appellate Court. He was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted to him; hearing of the appeal is likely to take long time, therefore, the application for suspension of sentence may be granted.

¶19

Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused-applicant for releasing the appellant on application for suspension of sentence. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶20

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the facts that the accused-appellant was on bail during the course of trial and the hearing of appeal is likely to take further more time and considering the overall submissions while refraining from passing any comments on the niceties of the matter and the defects of the prosecution as the same may put an adverse effect on hearing of the appeal, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant.

¶21

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, District – Sirohi who passed the impugned order dated 11.07.2023 in Special Sessions Case No.26/2022 (CIS No.26/2022) against the

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

appellant-applicant- Mahendra Kumar S/o Nawaram 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 11.09.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶24

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

¶25

(2) 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.

¶26

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

¶27

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶28

255-Pramod/-

Mahendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar 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

Amit Sharma Vs Rajkumar

Kiran Kumar Gharu Vs Smt. Anita

Dharampal Singhal Vs Babulal Gaykavad

Sagar Mal Vs State

Vikram @ Vicky Vs State of Rajasthan

Bikar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan