Allowed

Sahdev Son of Shri Moolchand v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Dec 2024SOSA/2297/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed an application for suspension of sentence under Section 430 of BNSS 2023. The court held it was a fit case to suspend the sentence of two appellants convicted for offences including Section 307 IPC, given their clean conduct on bail.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence awarded to the appellants in Sessions Case No.164/2016, conditional upon furnishing a Rs.1,00,000 bond and two Rs.50,000 sureties.

Sahdev Son of Shri Moolchand Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2297/2024

¶3

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.3260/2024

¶5

Sahdev Son Of Shri Moolchand, Resident Of Phulwada Police Station Sadar Hindaun District Karauli (Raj) (At Present In District Jail, Karauli)

¶6

Rajkumar Son Of Shri Pooran, Resident Of Phulwada Police Station Sadar Hindaun District Karauli (Raj) (At Present In District Jail, Karauli)

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶13

Order

¶14

20/12/2024

¶15

The accused-applicants/appellants have preferred the present application for suspension of sentence under Section 430 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 in connection with impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hindaun City, District Karauli in Sessions Case No.164/2016 (CIS No.164/2016), whereby, the accused-applicants/appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325/34 & 307/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years simple imprisonment and fine.

¶16

(2 of 3) [SOSA-2297/2024]

¶17

Learned counsel for the accused/appellants submits that the accused/appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to them. Learned counsel further submits that the accused-appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 307 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC and not simplicitor under Section 307 IPC.

¶18

Learned counsel also submits that the alleged incident has occurred all of sudden because of some dispute about money transactions and there is no such intention of the accusedappellants to commit the crime.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and so also the fact that the accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 IPC and they did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to them, this Court feels that it is a fit case to suspend the sentence awarded to the accusedapplicants/appellants.

¶20

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants, namely, (1) Sahdev S/o Shri Moolchand and (2) Rajkumar S/o Shri Pooran in Sessions Case No.164/2016 shall remain suspended provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to the effect that they shall appear before

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[SOSA-2297/2024]

¶23

Registrar (Judl.) on 21.01.2025 and further on subsequent date(s)

¶24

as and when called upon to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions as follows:-

¶25

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

¶26

ii) They will appear before the trial Court in the month of December every year till the appeal is decided.

¶27

iii) If the appellants change 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. iv). Similarly, if the sureties change their address, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

¶28

A copy of this order be sent to learned trial Court through e-

¶29

mail.

¶30

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶31

Ashish Kumar /261

Sahdev Son of Shri Moolchand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahdev Son of Shri Moolchand 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

Raghuveer Son of Laxminarayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishal S/O Dharmpal Vs State of Rajasthan

Umardeen S/O Saddik Vs State of Rajasthan

Naresh Kumar Meena S/O Shri Ramesh Chand Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohail S/O Saleem Vs State of Rajasthan

Dipanshu Meena S/O Late Sh. Ramdhan Meena Vs State of Rajasthan