Allowed

Sushil Kumar @ Pintu Son of Phoolsingh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Dec 2024SOSA/1291/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to suspend sentence imposed for offences including arson-type allegations in Sessions Case No.51/2018. Court noted allegation of letting fire was against co-accused Dilip, not the applicants. Suspended sentence subject to personal bonds and sureties with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended; personal bond Rs.1,00,000 each plus two sureties Rs.50,000 each; appearance on 16.01.2025 and subsequent dates till appeal disposal.

Sushil Kumar @ Pintu Son of Phoolsingh Vs State of Rajasthan — 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. 1291/2024

¶3

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1800/2024

¶5

Sushil Kumar @ Pintu Son Of Phoolsingh, Resident Of Mauroli Ka Pura, Police Station Sadar, District Dholpur (At Present In District Jail Dholpur)

¶6

Phoola @ Phoolsingh Son Of Samaliya, Resident Of Maurlli Ka Pura, Police Station Sadar, District Dholpur (Raj) (At Present In District Jail Dholpur)

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan, through P.P

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, Public Prosecutor

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶13

Order

¶14

16/12/2024

¶15

This application for suspension of sentence has been filed qua the accused-applicants, namely, Sushil Kumar @ Pintu and Phoola @ Phoolsingh under Section 430 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 in connection with impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Sessions Case No.51/2018, whereby, the accused-applicants/appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 327, 436, 450, 384 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, 452 and 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years simple imprisonment with fine.

¶16

[SOSA-1291/2024]

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

Learned counsel for the accused-applicants submits that the accused-applicants, namely, Sushil Kumar @ Pintu and Phoola @ Phoolsingh were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to them. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation of letting fire is against the co-accused, namely, Dilip not against the present applicants.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.

¶20

Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record.

¶21

As per the version of Suresh Kumar recorded as PW-4, the allegation of letting fire is against Dilip not against the present accused-applicants. However, they were alleged to be present on the spot.

¶22

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstnaces of the case and more particularly the fact that the allegationof letting fire is against co-accused-Dilip and not against the present applicants, this Court feels that it is a fit case to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused-applicants/appellants.

¶23

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants, namely, (1) Sushil Kumar @ Pintu S/o Phoolsingh and (2) Phoola @ Phoolsingh S/o Samaliya in Sessions Case No.51/2018 shall remain suspended provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lac only), together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[SOSA-1291/2024]

¶26

of the learned trial Court to the effect that they shall appear before this Court on 16.01.2025 and further on subsequent date(s) as and when called upon to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions as follows:-

¶27

i) After release of the accused appellants, they shall not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that they are involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled. ii) They will appear before the trial Court in the month of December every year till the appeal is decided.

¶28

iii) If the appellants 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.

¶29

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

¶30

A copy of this order be sent to learned trial Court through e-

¶31

mail.

¶32

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶33

Ashish Kumar /187

Sushil Kumar @ Pintu Son of Phoolsingh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar @ Pintu Son of Phoolsingh 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

Saras Rana W/O Laxmikant Vs State of Rajasthan

Vaheed S/O Chandsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Satyanarayan S/O Jamnalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalu S/O Dhanna @ Dhanna Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokesh Son of Jahan Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Hemraj Lothiya S/O Shri Madan Lal Lothiya Vs State of Rajasthan