Dismissed

Vijayram S/O Ramlal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Mar 2024SOSA/69/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court dismissed a second application for suspension of sentence filed by Vijayram S/o Ramlal. The Court observed the appellant's history of 18 registered cases with few pending, regular criminal activity, and the prior dismissal of a similar application, concluding he is not entitled to release. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The second application for suspension of sentence is dismissed; the miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

Vijayram S/O Ramlal Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:14122]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc 2^nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 69/2024

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1648/2023

¶6

Vijayram S/o Ramlal, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Kishanpura Ki Dhani, Ramthambore Road, P.s. Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur (Raj) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Sawai Madhopur) (Raj)

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Lakhan Singh Meena
	Mr.	Abhishek Meena
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	S.S. Mahla
	Mr.	Tarun Jain

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶13

Order

¶14

19/03/2024

¶15

The instant second application for suspension of sentence is preferred in pending appeal which was admitted on 10.07.2023 and aggrieved from the order of conviction and sentence dated 09.06.2023 in Sessions Case No.58/2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 341, 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 326/34, 307/34, 435/34 IPC and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that while considering the first application for suspension of sentence on 20.09.2023, Hon’ble court has noticed the fact that there were 18

[2024:RJ-JP:14122]

[SOSA-69/2024]

(2 of 3)

cases pending against the appellant. He submitted that the trial court while convicting the appellant for offence under Sections 341, 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 326/34, 307/34, 435/34 IPC had awarded maximum punishment of 5 years under Section 307/34 IPC and out of the three convicts, two were released on bail after grant of suspension of sentence. He further submitted that as per case of prosecution, the injured has sustained 20 injuries and all of them are on non-vital parts of the body. He further submitted that injuries were not attributed upon present appellant, therefore he is entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that the appellant has been in custody for more than one year.

¶20

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶22

On 20.09.2023, first application for suspension of sentence of appellant was dismissed by this court on the ground as reproduced as under:-

¶23

“This court on 21.07.2023 allowed application for suspension of sentence of Ram Lal and on 17.08.2023 allowed application for suspension of sentence of Surendra. We have perused the statements as referred by learned counsel for appellant particularly contradictions and discrepancies as pointed out during submissions. We have gone through the statement of PW-13 and PW-16. Learned trial court had considered the fact that 20 injuries were sustained by injured and injury report (Ex.P-14), X-ray report (Ex.P-15) and opinion (Ex.P-6) were also considered by us. Injured Saddam was firstly examined by medical

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:14122]

[SOSA-69/2024]

jurist (PW-13) and as per his opinion injury Nos. 7 to 10, 11 and 20 were grievous though the injuries were not caused on vital organs of body. A report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor indicated that from 2012 to 2023, a total number of 18 cases were registered against present appellant, wherein charge-sheet was recommended for trial. The report further indicated that except one, other cases are pending before the court for trial. It appears that appellant is habitual in committing crime particularly this type of cases.”

¶28

A perusal of record indicated that total 18 cases were registered against the appellant out of which only in one case, the appellant was acquitted. According to custody certificate, appellant has been in custody since 10.06.2023. It appears that during trial, appellant remained in custody for more than 7 months. Total period of custody till now is more than one year.

¶29

We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for appellant on contradictions and discrepancies and after considering aforesaid, this court does not find any case in favour of the appellant as he has regularly indulged in criminal activity, therefore he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶30

Accordingly, second application for suspension of sentence is dismissed.

¶31

Misc. application stands disposed of.

¶32

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶33

PREETI VALECHA /04

Vijayram S/O Ramlal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayram S/O Ramlal 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

Madan Lal Vs Naresh Kumar and Ors.

Uphar Handmade Paper Board Vs Raj State Open School and Anr.

Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs Arban Imprashan Trust

Firoz Ahmed S/O Ayyaj Ahmed Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramphool S/O Rampal Vs Ramkunwar S/O Nanagram

Rajesh Kumar S/O Sh. Rajaram Vs Harish Joshi S/O Sh. Bhanwar Lal