Allowed

Vakeel @ Gopal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC28 May 2024SOSA/450/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four petitioners contested by the State sought suspension of their substantive sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. during pendency of appeals. The High Court allowed the applications, suspending sentences subject to depositing 50% fines, executing bonds, and appearing in trial and High Court courts as directed.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentences suspended until final disposal of appeal subject to 50% fine deposit, bail bonds, and appearance conditions.

Vakeel @ Gopal Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:24263]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 450/2024

¶4

Vakeel @ Gopal S/o Dunga Ji, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Tejpura, P.s. Kankroli, District Rajsamand (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 490/2024

¶11

Babu Lal S/o Mewa Lal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Railmagra Choki, Railmagra, District Rajsamand. (Presently Appellant Is In Central Jail Udaipur)

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 547/2024

¶17

Shambhu Lal S/o Rama Ji, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Bori, P.s Parsad, Dist. Udaipur (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

¶18

----Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶21

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 548/2024 Shankar Lal S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Oda, P.s. Railmagra, Dist. Rajsamand (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

¶22

----Petitioner

¶23

Versus

¶24

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶25

----Respondent

¶26

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Sudhir Saruparia
	Mr.	Vikram Singh Jaitawat
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Mukesh Trivedi,PP

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:24263]

[SOSA-450/2024]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶31

Order

¶32

28/05/2024

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were on bail during the trial and hearing of the appeals will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the sentence of the appellants may kindly be suspended.

¶35

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the appellants.

¶36

Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the substantive sentence awarded to the accused appellants.

¶37

Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.4, District Udaipur vide judgment dated 28.03.2024 in Sessions Case No.39/2017 against the appellants-applicants (1) Vakeel @ Gopal S/o Dunga Ji (2) Babu Lal S/o Mewa Lal (3) Shambhu Lal S/o Rama Ji and (4) Shankar Lal S/o Mangi Lal, shall be suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal subject to the condition that the appellants shall deposit the 50% of the fine amount as imposed by the learned trial Court and they will be released on bail, provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each

[2024:RJ-JD:24263]

[SOSA-450/2024]

(3 of 3)

to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 04.07.2024 and whenever ordered to do so till the

¶42

disposal of the appeals on the conditions indicated below:-

¶43

That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

¶44

That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶45

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

¶46

Appellants shall deposit the 50% of fine amount as imposed by the learned trial court.

¶47

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/were 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 applicant(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶48

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶49

101-104-Rashi/-

Vakeel @ Gopal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakeel @ Gopal 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

Bhagaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Jasveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunder Ram @ Shyam @ Surendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Imtiyaz Ahmed Vs State of Rajasthan

Gehari Lal @ Kailash Dangi Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan