Allowed

Soda Khan @ Sobar @ Luniya v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Sept 2023SOSA/899/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed suspension of sentence applications filed by two appellants convicted under the SC/ST Act and Explosive Substances Act. Following Supreme Court orders in similar cases, the Court granted bail pending appeal subject to execution of a personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended till final disposal of appeal; release on bail in Rs.1,00,000/- bond with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.

Soda Khan @ Sobar @ Luniya Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:30747-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 899/2023

¶4

Soda Khan @ Sobar @ Luniya S/o Haji Ahadi Musalman, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Bhabhute-Ki-Dhani, Police Station Beenjrad, District Barmer. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 983/2023

¶11

Mussa S/o Sh. Sadiq @ Sabiya, Aged About 73 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Bhabhuto Ki Dhani, Binzrad Police Station, Barmer, District Barmer. (Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur).

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Nishant Bora Mr. B RayBishnoi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. RR Chapparwal,PP

¶16

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

¶17

Order

¶18

20/09/2023

¶19

The appellants-applicants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 25..08.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities), Barmer, in Sessions Case No.01/2010 (37/2010).

¶20

(2 of 5)

¶21

[2023:RJ-JD:30747-DB]

¶22

[SOSA-899/2023]

¶23

Offences		Sentence	Fine
5/9B of Explosive Ac	the t	3 years S.I.	Rs.5000/- and in default of which to further undergo one month’s S.I.
6/9B of Explosive Ac	the t	2 years S.I.	Rs.5,000/- and in default of which to further undergo one month’s S.I.
4 of Explosive Substances 1908	the Act,	L.I. (14 years)	Rs.10,000/- and in default of which to further undergo two months S.I.
5 of Explosive Substances 1908	the Act,	L.I. (14 years)	Rs.10,000/- and in default of which to further undergo two months’ S.I.
6 of Explosive Substances 1908	the Act,	L.I (14 years)	Rs.10,000/- and in default of which to further undergo two months’ S.I.
3/25 of Arms Act,19	the 59	5 years S.I	Rs.3,000/- and in default of which to further undergo one month’s S.I.
7/25(1)(D)( AA) of the A Act,1959	1- rms	L.I (14 Years)	Rs.5,000/- and in default of which to further undergo one month’s S.I.
3/10 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,2008	the	L.I (14 Years)	Rs.10,000/- and in default of which to further undergo two months’ S.I.
13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,2008	the	7 Years S.I	Rs.3,000/- and in default of which to further undergo one month’s S.I.
18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,2008	the	L.I (14 Years)	Rs.10,000/- and in default of which to further undergo two months’ S.I.
20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,2008	the	L.I (14 Years)	Rs.10,000/- and in default of which to further undergo two months’ S.I.
153-A IPC		3 Years S.I	Rs.3,000/- and in default of which to further undergo one month’s S.I.

¶24

(3 of 5)

¶25

[2023:RJ-JD:30747-DB]

¶26

[SOSA-899/2023]

¶27

120-B IPC L.I (14 Years) Rs.10,000/- and in default of which to further undergo two months’ S.I.

¶28

The appellants-applicants have preferred these applications for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for release on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants-applicants have submitted that the co-convict Jagmohan and Nazir, who have filed application seeking suspension of sentence, their applications were rejected by this Court, against which, both of them approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP Criminal No.2016/2023 and 7224/2023 respectively wherein, Hon’ble Supreme Court vide orders dated 05.04.2023 and 21.07.2023, has ordered to grant suspension of sentence of the co-convict and enlarge them on bail on account of period of incarceration undergone by them.

¶30

Submissions have been made that while Jagmohan had undergone sentence for 10 years 6 months, Nazir had undergone sentence for 13 years 10 months and 21 days. 5. It is submitted that case of the applicants, is similar to those Jagmohan and Nazir (supra), as while applicant Soda has undergone sentence for 13 years 10 months, applicant Mussa has undergone sentence for 12 years 3 months and therefore, looking to the period of sentence, they be enlarged on bail. 6. The applications are contested by learned Public Prosecutor, however, it is not denied that Jagmohan and Nazir have been granted suspension of sentence by Hon’ble Supreme Court only on account of the period of incarceration undergone of them.

¶31

[2023:RJ-JD:30747-DB]

¶32

[SOSA-899/2023]

¶33

(4 of 5)

¶34

In view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagmohan and Nazir (supra), and the fact that case of the applicants can not be distinguished from that of Jagmohan and Nazir, who were granted suspension of sentence and bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court only on account of their having undergone incarceration for a particular period, which period also is same to that of the present applicants, the applications are allowed.

¶35

It is ordered that sentence passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities), Barmer in Sessions Case No.1/2010 (37/2010) against the appellants- applicants 1. Soda Khan @ Sobar @ Luniya S/o Haji Ahadi Musalman and 2. Mussa S/o Sh. Sadiq @ Sabiya, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided they execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each having immovable properties, to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 20/10/2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:

¶36

That they will appear before the trial court twice every year i.e. in the month of January and July of every year till the appeal is decided.

¶37

That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶38

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

¶39

The sureties must be in possession of immovable property.

¶40

[2023:RJ-JD:30747-DB]

¶41

[SOSA-899/2023]

¶42

The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accusedapplicants were 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-applicants do not appear before the trial court as ordered i.e. twice a year, learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶43

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶44

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶45

98-Anshul/-

Soda Khan @ Sobar @ Luniya v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soda Khan @ Sobar @ Luniya 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

Sajid Vs the State of Rajasthan

Amarjot Vs Sonam Arya

Shobha Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Pokar Ram Vs Doli Banam Mandir Shri Mahadevji (Jaikalnath)

Babu Lal Meghwal Vs Shri Sandeep Kumar Varma and Ors.

Revant Ram @ Rati Ram Vs State of Rajasthan