Allowed

Udaysingh Son of Shri Sampatram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Mar 2024SOSA/589/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appealed against conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act. Pending appeal disposal which will take time and as maximum sentence is three years already suspended, this Court allowed suspension of substantive sentence on bail conditions and fine deposit.

What did the court decide?

Allowed suspension of sentence awarded by trial court pending final disposal of appeal, subject to bail conditions including fine deposit and execution of personal bond.

Udaysingh Son of Shri Sampatram Meena Vs State… — 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 No.589/2024

¶3

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 701/2024

¶5

Uday Singh Son Of Shri Sampatram Meena, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Village Meenapura Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar The Then Constable Office Of Additional Superintendent Of Police Vigilance, Jaipur Discom Ramgarh, Jaipur (Raj)

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Najeeb Anwar Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Meena, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

08/04/2024

¶14

Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1) (D) read with Section13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and the maximum sentence of three years has been awarded, which has already been suspended by the trial Court. Counsel submits that the disposal of the appeal is bound to take time, so the sentence of the appellant be suspended till disposal of the appeal. 2. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the suspension of sentence application.

¶15

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

¶16

[CRLAS-701/2024]

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

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 three years, which has already been suspended by the trial Court and during trial he was on bail 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 accusedappellant.

¶19

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, Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Alwar (Raj.), vide judgment dated 19.03.2024 in Regular Criminal Case No.37/2015, CIS No. 37/2015 against the appellant Udaysingh Son Of Shri Sampatram Meena, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, subject to the condition that the appellant shall deposit the fine amount, 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 08.05.2024 and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

(3 of 3) [CRLAS-701/2024]

¶23

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

¶24

Appellant shall deposit a fine amount as imposed by the learned trial Court.

¶25

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.

¶26

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶27

DIKSHA MISHRA /35

Udaysingh Son of Shri Sampatram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udaysingh Son of Shri Sampatram Meena 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

Puran, S/O Mangla Vs State of

Amar Singh S/O Guljari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shehjad @ Aasish S/O Nawab Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Sachin Kumar Son of Shri Raj Narayan Jangid Vs Union of India

Jagdish Narayan Meena Son of Sh. Kalyan Sahay Vs Sh. Ramavter Gurjar

Santosh Kumar Poddar Son of Shri Prabhudayal Poddar Vs Shri Shyam Khandelwal