Allowed

Mangilal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Apr 2023SOSA/99/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan granted a suspension of sentence application by two appellants convicted for offences under Sections 302/149 IPC etc., allowing release on bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of their appeal subject to bond and attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence and release on bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C. conditioned on personal bond and sureties.

Mangilal Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/010316]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

AT JODHPUR

¶4

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 99/2023

¶5

¶6

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.148/2022

¶7

Mangilal S/o Sh. Sawa Ji, aged about 38 Years, R/o Chota Selarpura, Police Station Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh (Raj.)

¶8

Moti S/o Sh. Sawa Ji, aged about 51 Years, R/o Chota Selarpura, Police Station Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh (Raj.).

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Purohit. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP.

¶14

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

¶15

17/04/2023

¶16

The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 29.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Pratapgarh, in Session Case No.2/2016 (78/2016):

¶17

Offences	Sentence	Fine
302/149 IPC	Life Imprisonment	Rs.25,000/- each default of which	and in to further
		undergo three	month’s
		additional S.I.

(2 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/010316]

[SOSA-99/2023]

148 IPC	One month’s simple imprisonment	Rs.1,000/- each and in default of which to further undergo ten days’ additional simple imprisonment
341/149 IPC	Three months’ simple imprisonment	Rs.100/- each and in default of which to further undergo five days’ additional simple imprisonment.
323/149 IPC	Three months’ simple imprisonment	Rs.300/- each and in default of which to further undergo seven days’ additional simple imprisonment.

¶22

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

¶23

Leaned counsel for the appellants-applicants submitted that the trial court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellants/applicants, inter-alia , for offence under Section 302/149 IPC. It is submitted that from the evidence produced by the prosecution it is apparent that while co-convict, namely, Dalu and Panna were brandishing knife, Kailash was having an axe and Karu had a stick, who allegedly attacked on the person of deceased, Pyara and the allegation against the appellants/applicants is that they were part of the unlawful assembly, which attacked the house of the complainant. It is submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the appellants/applicants and only omnibus allegations have been levelled against them.

¶24

Further submissions have been made that the appellants/applicants were on bail during the trial and that the hearing of the appeal is likely to take time and, therefore, their sentences may be suspended. Further submissions have been

[2023/RJJD/010316]

[SOSA-99/2023]

(3 of 4)

made that co-convict, namely, Smt. Lali Bai and Smt. Om Kanwar, against whom similar allegations were made, their sentences have been ordered to be suspended by a Coordinate Bench in D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.991/2022 on 24.01.2023.

¶29

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for suspension of sentence.

¶30

Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and after carefully scrutinizing the record of the case, without making any observations on merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of the appellantsapplicants, namely, Mangilal S/o Shri Sawa Ji and Moti S/o Shri Sawa Ji, during the pendency of the appeal.

¶31

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 Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Pratapgarh in Session Case No.42/2016 (78/2016) against the appellants-applicants, namely, Mangilal S/o Shri Sawa Ji and Moti S/o Shri Sawa Ji, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided they execute/s 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 their appearance in this court on 17.05.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/010316]

[SOSA-99/2023]

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

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶40

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶41

26-DJ/-

Mangilal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangilal 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

Teeta Vs State

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Rupa Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Rangana Vs State of Rajasthan

Bala Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilip Nakwal Vs State of Rajasthan