Allowed

Jitendra Kumar Bhargav @ Jeetu Son of Kailash Chandra Dakot, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC28 May 2024SOSA/100/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court suspended the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant under POCSO Act, relying on the fact that a co-accused received identical treatment and the appellant had already undergone a significant portion of the sentence.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended subject to deposit of fine and execution of personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each.

Jitendra Kumar Bhargav @ Jeetu Son of Kailash Chandra… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.100/2024

¶3

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1308/2023

¶5

Jitendra Kumar Bhargav @ Jeetu Son of Kailash Chandra Dakot, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Kalayanpura, Police Station Shrimadhopur District Sikar. (Accused Is Confined In Central Jail, Sikar)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shamsul Aarefin For Respondent(s) : Mr. MK Sheoran, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

28/05/2024

¶14

Counsel for the appellant submits that the allegation against the present appellant as well as co-accused Anil Kumar is identical and both were awarded sentence of ten years. Counsel submits that the sentence of the co-accused Anil Kumar has already been suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.08.2023. Counsel submits that the appellant is in custody since last more than four years and total sentence is ten years. Counsel submits that hearing and disposal of the appeal is bound to take time, so the sentence of the appellant be suspended till disposal of the appeal.

¶15

[SOSA-100/2024]

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the suspension of sentence application.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

¶19

Considering the arguments put forward by the counsel for the appellant and looking to the fact that the sentence of co-accused Anil Kumar has already been suspended by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.08.2023 and case of the present appellant is at par with him and looking to the fact the out of total sentence of ten years, the appellant has undergone imprisonment for almost four years and looking to the fact that hearing & disposal of the appeal is likely to take time, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant.

¶20

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed by the applicant under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the sentence awarded by the Court of Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, No.2, Sikar vide judgment dated 01.05.2023 in Sessions Case CIS No.44/2020 against the appellant Jitendra Kumar Bhargav @ Jeetu Son Of Kailash Chandra Dakot shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, subject to the condition that the appellant shall deposit the fine amount, as imposed by the Trial Court and he shall be released on bail provided he executes a personal bond in

¶21

[SOSA-100/2024]

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for appearance before this Court on 28.06.2024 and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶24

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

¶25

That if the applicant changes the place of residence and mobile number, he will give in writing his changed address and mobile number to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶26

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

¶27

Appellant shall deposit a fine amount as imposed by the learned trial Court.

¶28

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

¶29

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶30

KuD/65

Jitendra Kumar Bhargav @ Jeetu Son of Kailash Chandra Dakot, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Bhargav @ Jeetu Son of Kailash Chandra Dakot, 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

Smt. Sheela Devi Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Kishan @ Baggu @ Krishna Son of Radheyshyam Tiwari Vs State of Rajasthan

Kavita Shrivastava Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Mithun @ Chuuni S/O Khemchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramjan S/O Karna, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vimla Devi W/O Shri Hariram B/C Darji Vs Hariram Adopted S/O Ramlal B/C Darji