Three appellants convicted under Sections 307, 326, 323 and 341 IPC read with Section 34 sought suspension of sentence pending their criminal appeals, citing about five years in custody and heavy case pendency. Relying on Satender Kumar Antil, the court suspended the sentences and released them on bail with conditions.
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-JD:25147]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1438/2023
In
S.B. Criminal appeal No.2338/2023
Jaipal Bhadu S/o Shrichand Bhadu, Aged About 36 Years, R/oManniwali, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sriganganagar (Raj.). (Presently Lodged In District Jail, Sriganganagar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1525/2023
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2457/2023
Sandeep Meghwal S/o Shri Jasraj, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Manniwali, Tehsil Sadul Shahar, Dist. Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. (Lodged In Jail Sriganganagar).
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 180/2024
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 217/2024
Vikas Pandit S/o Shri Moolchand, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Manniwali, Tehsil Sadul Shahar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan (Lodged In Jail Shri Ganganagar)
(2 of 6) [SOSA-1438/2023]
[2024:RJ-JD:25147]
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : | Mr. N.K. Sharma |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Dugresh Sharma | ||
| Ms. Sapna Vaishnav | ||
| For Respondent(s) | : | Mr. Abhishek Purohit,AGA |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
29/05/2024
| Name of the accused |
Offence for which convicted |
Substantive sentence |
Fine and default sentence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Jaipal Bhadu 2.Sandeep Meghwal 3.Vikas Pandit |
Section 341 r.w. Section 34 of the IPC |
- | Fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, additional of 7 days S.I. |
| Section 323 r.w. Section 34 of the IPC |
- | Six months RI | |
| Section 326 r.w. Section 34 of the IPC |
5 years RI | Fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional of 3 months R.I. |
|
| Section 307 r.w. Section 34 of the IPC |
10 years RI | Fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional of one year’s R.I. |
[2024:RJ-JD:25147]
[SOSA-1438/2023]
(3 of 6)
(4 of 6)
[2024:RJ-JD:25147]
[SOSA-1438/2023]
question whether the appellants made an attempt to kill the victim shall be adjudicated after making further appreciation of the evidence while hearing the appeals on merit, but there seems no hope for hearing the appeal on merits in near future.
“41. Sub-section (2) has to be read along with Sub-section (1). The proviso to Sub-section (2) restricts the period of remand to a maximum of 15 days at a time. The second proviso prohibits an adjournment when the witnesses are in attendance except for special reasons, which are to be recorded. Certain reasons for seeking adjournment are held to be permissible. One must read this provision from the point of view of the dispensation of justice. After all, right to a fair and speedy trial is yet another facet of Article 21. Therefore, while it is expected of the court to comply with Section 309 of the Code to the extent possible, an unexplained, avoidable and prolonged delay in concluding a trial, appeal or revision would certainly be a factor for the consideration of bail . This we hold so notwithstanding the beneficial provision Under Section 436A of the Code which stands on a different footing. 42. ……
43. A suspension of sentence is an act of keeping the sentence in abeyance, pending the final adjudication. Though delay in taking up the main appeal would certainly be a factor and the benefit available Under Section 436A would also be considered, the Courts will have to see the relevant factors including the conviction rendered by the trial court. When it is so apparent that the appeals are not likely to be taken up and disposed of, then the delay would certainly be a factor in favour of the Appellant.
44. Thus, we hold that the delay in taking up the main appeal or revision coupled with the benefit conferred Under Section 436A of the Code among other factors ought to be considered for a favourable release on bail.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
(5 of 6)
[2024:RJ-JD:25147]
[SOSA-1438/2023]
the cases, there is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal on merits in near future, thus, while refraining from passing any comments on the niceties of the matter, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused appellants.
(3) Similarly, if the sureties change their addresses, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.
(6 of 6)
[2024:RJ-JD:25147]
[SOSA-1438/2023]
(FARJAND ALI),J
474-Mamta/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the sentences of the three convicted appellants should be suspended pending disposal of their appeals given prolonged custody and unlikely early hearing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manohar Lal Ainani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.Relied on¶2
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s) 2893/21
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.Relied on¶6
AIR 2022 SC 3386 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Jaipal Bhadu
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
Sandeep Meghwal
Vikas Pandit
Brij Lal
Farjand Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
