Allowed

Suresh Pareva S/O Shri Deendayal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Apr 2024SOSA/439/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a suspension of sentence application under Cr.P.C. 389 for an appellant convicted of preventive against corruption offences, directing him to deposit half the fine and execute a bond for bail while the appeal proceeds.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of the substantive sentence awarded by the Special Court until the final disposal of the appeal, subject to bond conditions and fine deposit.

Suresh Pareva S/O Shri Deendayal Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 439/2024

¶3

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 524/2024

¶5

Suresh Pareva S/o Shri Deendayal, R/o 234, Nemisagar Vistar, Vaishali Nagar Jaipur Police Inspector Tatkalin Enforcement Officer Zone 05 And 11, Jaipur Development Authority Jaipur (Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Special Public Prosecutor

¶9

Ajay Saharan S/o Shri Ramprasad Saharan, R/o House No. 235, Officers Campus Vistar, Sirsi Road, Jaipur

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain, Adv. Mr. Vinod Badgujar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

04/04/2024

¶15

Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1) (D), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the maximum sentence of five years has been awarded to him by judgment dated 04.03.2024. Counsel submits that the hearing and disposal of the appeal is bound to take time, so the sentence of the appellant be suspended till disposal of the appeal.

¶16

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the suspension of sentence application.

¶17

[SOSA-439/2024]

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

¶20

Considering the arguments put forward by the counsel for the appellant and looking to the fact that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is five years, and he was on bail during the course of the trial and looking to the fact that disposal of the appeal is likely to take time, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-appellant.

¶21

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed by the applicant under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the sentence awarded by the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Case, No.01, Jaipur Metropolitan-II vide judgment dated 04.03.2024 in Sessions Case No.08/2017 against the appellant Suresh Pareva S/o Shri Deendayal shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, subject to the condition that the appellant shall deposit the half of the fine amount i.e, Rs.1,00,000/- as imposed by the Trial Court and he shall be released on bail provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for appearance before this Court on 03.05.2024 and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶22

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

¶23

That if the applicant changes the place of residence and mobile number, he will give in writing his changed address and mobile number to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[SOSA-439/2024]

¶26

Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

¶27

Appellant shall deposit a fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Trial Court within a period of two months.

¶28

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accusedappellant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused-appellant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶29

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶30

DIKSHA MISHRA /220

Suresh Pareva S/O Shri Deendayal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Pareva S/O Shri Deendayal 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

Asha Saini D/O Ramji Lal Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Shamsher Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Ram Singh Vs State

Ashok Choudhary Son of Shri Ramkishan Choudhary, Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagat Singh Son of Shri Naresh Kumar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Monika Kanwar W/O. Mohan Singh Shekhawat and D/O. Sher Singh Rathore, Vs State of Rajasthan