Allowed

Sandeep Roy @ Lali Son of Shri Sarbjeet Rai v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Oct 2024SOSA/1593/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order grants suspension of sentence for three appellants who were on bail during trial but are now in custody following conviction. The court finds this a fit case due to lack of criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Applicants allowed bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Sandeep Roy @ Lali Son of Shri Sarbjeet Rai Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:43676]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1741/2024

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2625/2024

¶6

Govind Singh @ Sameer Lala S/o Shri Miththan Lal, R/o Gali No. 03, Aam Ka Talab, Shakti Nagar Naka Madar, P.s. Alwargate, District Ajmer (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1593/2024

¶13

¶14

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2392/2024

¶15

Sandeep Roy @ Lali Son Of Shri Sarbjeet Rai, Resident Of House No. 121, New Indra Colony, Kundan Nagar, Police Station Alwargate, District Ajmer (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer)

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1742/2024

¶21

¶22

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2626/2024

¶23

Devendra Yadav @ Manoj Yadav S/o Shri Ashok Kumar, R/o Near Rajput Hostel Kundan Nagar, Police Station Alwargate District Ajmer (At Present Confined In Central Ajmer)

¶24

----Petitioner

¶25

Versus

¶26

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

----Respondent

(2 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:43676]

[SOSA-1741/2024]

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Devanshu Sharma
	Mr. Ashvin Garg
	Mr. VinayPal Yadav
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit,PP

¶32

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶33

Order

¶34

17/10/2024

¶35

The instant applications for suspension of sentence is preferred in pending appeals filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 28.08.2024 in Sessions Case No.69/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Ajmer whereby appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 323, 342 and 395 IPC and sentenced accordingly.

¶36

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent person and they are falsely implicated in the matter. He further referred cross-examination of PW-1 star witness and submitted that there is big variation in improvement in the story narrated by her at the time of registration of FIR and statement made to police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that as per cross-examination of IO-PW-12, there was CCTV in the society but no footage was collected during investigation. He further submitted that there was a night watchman but his statement was not recorded by the IO. He also referred the test identification parade (TIP) and submitted that TIP of appellants was not filed on record. He further submitted that articles allegedly recovered from possession of appellants were neither produced before the court nor identification process before Executive Magistrate was proved during trial. It is submitted that

[2024:RJ-JP:43676]

[SOSA-1741/2024]

(3 of 6)

Executive Magistrate was not produced by prosecution. He further submitted that there was no independent eye witness at the time of recovery and place of recovery was not in exclusive possession of any of the appellants.

¶41

Learned counsel for appellant Sandeep Roy submitted that he was previously known to PW-1 but this fact was not mentioned by PW-1 in her report. He further submitted that the recovery witnesses PW-8 and PW-16 have not supported the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He also submitted that when the name of present appellant was not mentioned in the FIR, then it was necessary that TIP should be conducted but in the instant case no TIP was conducted qua Sandeep Roy. He further submitted that as per FIR only three persons were involved and Section 395 IPC cannot be attracted in the whole case. He further referred the statement of PW-6 Meera Garg and submitted that, PW-6 reached the spot just after the incident but involvement of not more than 2-3 persons not mentioned to PW-1 Sushila.

¶42

Learned counsel for Govind submitted that PW-16 Jagdish has not corroborated the recovery of articles and there is no verification of articles. He further submitted that appellant is an innocent person who was not part of the incident. He also raised the issue of TIP and submitted that no identification whatsoever is available on record.

¶43

Learned counsel for Devendra Yadav submitted that as per TIP, only one person was identified but not present one. He also submitted that there is no independent eye witness. He further referred Ex.P-4 and submitted that these articles were not produced before the trial court. He further referred cross-

(4 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:43676]

[SOSA-1741/2024]

examination of PW-8 and PW-16 to submit that recovery was also not proved.

¶48

Learned counsel for appellants submitted that appellants were on bail during trial and there is no criminal antecedents against any of the appellants, so they may be released on bail. 7. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificates and same are taken on record. He further submitted that complainant was already informed about filing of appeals.

¶49

Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 9. A perusal of record indicated that all three appellants were on bail during trial and now they are in custody after conviction. A perusal of record reflects that on the basis of statement of PW-1 Sushila (Ex.P-1) FIR No. 197/2018 under Sections 342 and 458 IPC was registered on 12.06.2018. During investigation, these appellant were identified and charge-sheet was filed. After facing trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5 has convicted appellants-Sandeep Roy, Govind Singh and Mohd. Israr under Sections 323, 342, 395 IPC and convicted Devendra under Sections 323, 342, 395 IPC and 3/25 of Arms Act. The maximum punishment awarded to appellants is 7 years.

¶50

We have considered the discrepancies and contradictions in light of statements as referred by learned counsel for appellants. We have also considered report registered by PW-1 Sushila and statement of PW-6 Meera. Also considered the cross-examination of IO- PW-5, PW-9 and PW-12. Also considered TIP with respect to

[2024:RJ-JP:43676]

[SOSA-1741/2024]

(5 of 6)

Mohd. Israr exhibited as Ex.P-5 and identification of articles Ex.P4.

¶55

Considered the fact that appellants on bail during trial and there is no criminal antecedents against any of the appellant, thus it is a fit case to enlarge appellants on bail.

¶56

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellants can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellants accused- Govind Singh @ Sameer Lala S/o Shri Miththan Lal, Sandeep Roy @ Lali Son Of Shri Sarbjeet Rai, and Devendra Yadav @ Manoj Yadav S/o Shri Ashok Kumar is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of them would execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 23.01.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶57

After release of appellants on bail, they will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that they are involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled.

¶58

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

¶59

That if the applicants changes 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.

(6 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:43676]

[SOSA-1741/2024]

Similarly, if the sureties change their addresses, they will give in writing their changed address to

¶64

the trial Court.

¶65

Misc. Application stands disposed of.

¶66

A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E-

¶67

mail.

¶68

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶69

PREETI VALECHA /27-29

Sandeep Roy @ Lali Son of Shri Sarbjeet Rai v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Roy @ Lali Son of Shri Sarbjeet Rai 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

Mahesh Kumar Yadav Son of Sunillal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Chand @ Kalu Son of Sawantaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Panna Lal S/O Kishna Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikas Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Ramgopal Sharma Vs Ramesh Kumar Jalan S/O Sh. Laxminarayan Jalan

Mohan Lal Son of Ramji Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhunkalram S/O Nathuram Vs State of Rajasthan