Allowed

Mohd. Yusuf v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Feb 2024SOSA/1374/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, the appellant applied for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. citing Supreme Court directives for long-term convicts. The Court allowed the application, suspending the substantive sentence and granting bail subject to conditions, noting the appeal has been pending for over 10 years with no likelihood of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The substantive sentence of the appellant is suspended; he is released on bail upon depositing 50% of the fine and executing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to appearing before the trial co

Mohd. Yusuf Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:8376-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1374/2023

¶4

Mohd. Yusuf S/o Saidulla Khan @ Laddu, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Behind Kazi Sahab Hotel, Guljapura, P.s. Sadar Bazar, Jodhpur (Presently Lodge Central Jail, Jodhpur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Kishan Singh S/o Mohan Singh, R/o Village Sambhuria, Post Bhim, Dist. Rajsamand

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Firoz Khan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Mukesh Trivedi,PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶12

Order

¶13

16/02/2024

¶14

The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 26.05.2015 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, District Jodhpur, in Sessions Case No.23/2012:

¶15

Offence U/s	Sentence	Fine	Sentence in default of payment of fine
302 IPC	L.I.	Rs.10,000/-	Oneyear R.I.
449 IPC	3 Years R. I.	Rs.5,000/-	Six months’ R.I.
323 IPC	6 Months’ R.I.	-	-
341 IPC	1 Month’s S.I.	-	-
148 IPC	2 Years’ R.I.	-	-
147 IPC	1 Year’s R.I.	-	-
4/25 Arms Act	3 Years’ R.I.	Rs.5,000/-	Six months’ R.I.

[2024:RJ-JD:8376-DB]

[SOSA-1374/2023]

(2 of 5)

The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal and for release on bail.

¶20

The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellantapplicant is that as the applicant is in custody for more than 15 years and there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in near future, thus, in view of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 15.09.2022 in Sonadhar v. The State of Chhattisgarh : SLP (Crl.) No.529/2021, the sentence of the applicant be suspended and he be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Further submissions have been made that there are no reasons and/or extenuating circumstances for denial of bail. Submissions have also been made with reference to order dated 05.10.2021 in Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh : SLP (Crl.) No.4633/2021, wherein also observations have been made regarding grant of bail in the appeal at the High Court stage except certain exceptions and that none of the exceptions are applicable in the present case.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for suspension of sentence with the submission that as the appellantapplicant has committed heinous offence, suspension of sentence of such offender would send adverse message in the society. However, he has not denied that the appellant-applicant has already undergone sentence of more than 15 years during trial and after sentence.

[2024:RJ-JD:8376-DB]

[SOSA-1374/2023]

(3 of 5)

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶27

Looking to the fact that criminal appeals pertaining to year 2008 also are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing of the present appeal in near future.

¶28

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonadhar (supra), while dealing with SMW (Crl.) No.4/2021 pertaining to ‘life convicts in jail whose appeals are pending before the High Court’ inter-alia, issued the following directions:-

¶29

“We consider appropriate to issue directions in terms of the aforesaid suggestions to the Patna High Court and on a pari materia basis to even the other High Courts. However, in order to carry out this exercise, the data would have to be compiled of such of the persons who have been in custody for more than 10 years and more than 14 years, with these persons being considered for grant of bail pending appeal, if there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in the near future, unless there are reasons for denial of bail. We can understand if any of the parties is delaying the appeal itself but short of that, we are of the view that all persons who have completed 10 years of sentence and appeal is not in proximity of hearing with no extenuating circumstances should be enlarged on bail.”

¶30

Prior to that in the case of Saudan Singh (supra) also observations were made regarding grant of bail in cases where convicts have undergone sentence for sufficiently long time and appeals were pending at the High Court stage with exceptions indicated therein.

¶31

In the present case as observed herein-before, the appellantapplicant has already undergone sentence for more than 15 years and apparently, there are no chances of hearing of the present

[2024:RJ-JD:8376-DB]

[SOSA-1374/2023]

(4 of 5)

appeal in near future. Except for the fact that the appellantapplicant was involved in offence leading to his conviction for life, nothing has been brought on record by way of extenuating circumstances for denial of suspension of sentence.

¶36

Consequently, following the order in the case of Sonadhar (supra) and observations made in Saudan Singh (supra), without making any observations on merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of the appellant-applicant, namely, Mohd. Yusuf S/o Saidulla Khan @ Laddu during the pendency of the appeal.

¶37

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 learned District and Sessions Judge, District Jodhpur vide judgment dated 26.05.2015 in Sessions Case No.23/2012, against the appellant-applicant, namely, Mohd. Yusuf S/o Saidulla Khan @ Laddu shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal subject to the condition that the appellant shall deposit the 50% of the fine amount as imposed by the learned trial Court 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 learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 18.03.2024 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:

¶38

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

(5 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:8376-DB]

[SOSA-1374/2023]

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.

¶43

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

¶44

The appellant shall deposit the 50% of the fine amount as imposed by the learned trial Court.

¶45

The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of

¶46

the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accusedapplicant 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-applicant do not appear before the trial court, learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶47

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶48

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶49

14-Rashi/-

Mohd. Yusuf v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Yusuf 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

Dikhani Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Saddam Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammed Sadiq Vs State of Rajasthan