Allowed

Indrapal Alias Inder Singh Son of Kedar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2024SOSA/1651/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for suspension of sentence. The court noted the incident occurred on the spur of the moment, involved stone pelting from both sides, and the nature of the injury sustained by the deceased did not corroborate the allegation of use of a sharp weapon by the accused. The sentence was suspended subject to furnishing personal bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended subject to furnishing personal bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.

Indrapal Alias Inder Singh Son of Kedar Singh Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:49923-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1651/2024

¶4

¶5

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.307/2024

¶6

Indrapal alias Inder Singh Son of Kedar Singh, Aged About 41 Years, Resident of Nadora Police Station Rajakheda District Dholpur (At Present In Central Jail Bharatpur)

¶7

Padam Singh Son of Kedar Singh, Aged About 41 Years, Resident of Nadora Police Station Rajakheda District Dholpur (At Present In Central Jail Bharatpur)

¶8

Pramod Kumar Son of Padam Singh, Aged About 25 Years, Resident of Nadora Police Station Rajakheda District Dholpur (At Present In Central Jail Bharatpur)

¶9

----Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Rajasthan, Through The PP

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

For Applicant(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Bhim Singh, Sr. Adv. assisted by Jaswant Rathore
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Vivek Sharma, Addl. G.A. Dushyant Jain with
	Mr.	Udit Sapra

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

¶15

Order

¶16

04/12/2024

¶17

Accused-applicants have preferred this application for

¶18

suspension of sentence.

¶19

Heard on application for suspension of sentence.

¶20

[2024:RJ-JP:49923-DB]

¶21

[SOSA-1651/2024]

¶22

(2 of 3)

¶23

It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-applicants that the incident took place on the spur of the moment. There was pelting of stones from both sides and both sides have sustained injuries and cross FIR has also been lodged. It is also contended that the accused-applicants were on bail during trial. The dispute took place between the parties belonging to the same family on a petty matter with regard to payment of electric charges and disconnection of the electric connection. It is further contended that there is only one injury on the head of the deceased which is not caused by a sharp weapon. The allegation that it was caused by Ballam , is not correct, as the injury is not caused by a sharp weapon. It is contended that the witnesses as well as the Investigating Officer has deposed that the fight took place on the spur of the moment. Both the parties have sustained injuries and they were pelting stones and the possibility of the deceased sustaining injuries by stone cannot be ruled out. It is also contended that except Pramod Kumar, accused-applicants were on bail during trial.

¶24

Learned Additional Govt. Advocate as well as learned counsel for the respondent-complainant have opposed the present application for suspension of sentence. It is contended that all the witnesses including injured witness has deposed that applicantIndrapal caused injury on the head of the deceased by Ballam .

¶25

5 We have considered the contentions.

¶26

Taking note of the fact that the incident took place on the spur of the moment, there was pelting of stones from both sides

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[2024:RJ-JP:49923-DB]

¶29

[SOSA-1651/2024]

¶30

and both sides have sustained injuries; the injury caused to deceased and assigned to applicant-Indrapal is an injury caused by Ballam , whereas as per the doctor, the injury is not caused by a sharp weapon. Also taking note of the fact that applicants Indrapal and Padam Singh were on bail during trial and there is no overt act assigned to applicants Padam Singh and Pramod Kumar; also taking note of the fact that disposal of appeal will take time and without further going into the merits of the case, we deem it proper to allow the present application for suspension of sentence.

¶31

Accordingly, the present application for suspension of sentence is allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused applicant in Sessions Case No.105/2021 shall remain suspended if the accused-applicants furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court to the effect that they shall appear before this Court as and when called upon to do so.

¶32

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶33

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶34

LAKSHYA-DAKSH/85

Indrapal Alias Inder Singh Son of Kedar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrapal Alias Inder Singh Son of Kedar Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banwari Lal Vs State

Vikash Kumar Mahla S/O Shri Shishpal @ Shishupal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Gaurav Singh Lohamaror S/O Dev Anand Lohamaror Vs State of Rajasthan

Navisher S/O Shri Gani Mohammed Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamlesh Soyal W/O Kamlesh Khatik Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vikrama P. v. Mocherla S/O Mocherla Suryanarayana Rao Vs State of Rajasthan