Court allowed suspension of sentence application pending appeal, enlarging appellants on bail with personal bond and reporting conditions without expressing opinion on merits of case.
Appellants enlarged on bail with execution of personal bond in sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each, pending disposal of appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JP:45013]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1596/2024
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2395/2024
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Mr. |
Ashvin Garg with Nonit Hatila |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
Vinay Pal Yadav |
| Mr. | VijaySingh Yadav,PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
24/10/2024
[2024:RJ-JP:45013]
[SOSA-1596/2024]
(2 of 5)
further submitted that there is no direct allegation against the appellants rather they were convicted with aid of Section 34 of IPC. He further submitted that in only one another case was registered against Anurag, wherein he was acquitted by the court and now no criminal case is pending or registered against any of the appellants. He also referred the complaint filed by complainant and submitted that there were three incidents and first was of 11.11.2012 wherein also there was no pre-meditated plan of the appellants to assault complainant party. He submitted that as per FIR and police report, the complainant party have attacked and assaulted the premises of accused party, and the hotel staff and the family members of accused tried to save property and persona in furtherance of right to private defence. He while referring the statement of doctor has submitted that all injuries sustained by injured are simple in nature and same are not dangerous to life. He submitted that from the entire material submitted by prosecution it was established that complainant party was aggressor and there was cross-case. He referred Ex.D-9 as FIR of cross-case. He further submitted that main allegation is upon Himmat and not on these two appellants. He referred the statement IO PW-24 and also Ex.D-14 and submitted that due to aggression of complainant, the accused party has sustained injuries and the trial court has failed to notice that complainant were aggressor and the action of present appellants was at the most in defence. He further referred the contradictions and discrepancies and submitted that appellants were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time.
[2024:RJ-JP:45013]
[SOSA-1596/2024]
(3 of 5)
23.08.2023) and submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that merely the injuries sustained by complainant were simple, even then same would not absolve the accused from charge under Section 307 IPC.
[2024:RJ-JP:45013]
[SOSA-1596/2024]
(4 of 5)
Shakti Singh, Anurag Singh and Himmat Singh were recommended for prosecution. After framing charge, learned trial court has convicted present appellants under Sections 323 and 307/34 IPC.
Babu Singh and Anurag Singh Alilas Monty Son Of Banney
Singh, is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of them would execute a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/-with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 13.02.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
(5 of 5)
[2024:RJ-JP:45013]
[SOSA-1596/2024]
that they are involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
PREETI VALECHA /19
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pending suspension of sentence application appeals can be enlarged on bail without final adjudication on merits.
What conditions should be imposed for suspending sentence pending disposal of criminal appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.K. Khaja Vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶25
S.K. Khaja Vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.1183/2011 order dated 23.08.2023)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Shakti Singh Son Of Babu Singh
Anurag Singh Alilas Monty Son Of Banney Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Ashok Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
