Allowed

Jagram Urf Pappu v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC14 Feb 2025CRLR/178/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the sentence of three years imposed in 2013 and the order allowing him to remain on bail since 2014. The Court reduced the sentence to the period of detention actually undergone and dismissed the plea to quash the bail status order.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced from three years to the period of detention actually undergone; order to remain on bail dismissed.

Jagram Urf Pappu Vs State of Rajasthan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:6767]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 178/2014

¶4

Jagram Alias Pappu son of Shri Ghamman, resident of Hudla, Police Station Mahua, District Dausa

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

14/02/2025

¶13

;g iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk fuxjkdkj&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky;] U;kf;d eftLVªsV] izFke oxZ] dBwej] ftyk&vyoj ds vkijkf/kd izdj.k la[;k&498@2012 jktLFkku jkT;&cuke&txjke mQZ iIiw esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 21-12-2013] ftlds }kjk fuxjkdkj&vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 411 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vijk/k esa nks"kfl) dj vf/kdre rhu o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl ,oa 1]000 :i;s ds vFkZn.M ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k ,oa mlds fo:) izLrqr nkf.Md vihy la[;k&02@2014] fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky;] vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] y{e.kx<+] vyoj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 29-01-2014 ls fujLr fd, tkus ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh xbZ gSA

¶14

izdj.k ds la{ksi esa rF; bl izdkj gSa fd ifjoknh f'koflag dh vksj iqfyl Fkkuk [ksjyh] ftyk&vyoj esa ,d rgjhjh fjiksVZ bl vk'k; dh izLrqr dh fd fnukad 03-08-2012 dks le; 04%30 cts og viuh LIysaMj eksVjlkbZfdy dks eqUuk lsB ds xsV ds ikl vLirky ds lkeus [kM+k dj xyh esa pyk x;kA yxHkx 10&15 feuV ckn vkdj ns[kk] rks eksVjlkbZfdy ugha feyh] vkfnA

[2025:RJ-JP:6767]

[CRLR-178/2014]

(2 of 4)

mDr rgjhjh fjiksVZ ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 273@2012 ntZ dh tkdj vuqla/kku izkjEHk fd;k x;k vkSj ckn vuqla/kku vfHk;qDr txjke mQZ iIiw ds fo:) /kkjk 379] 411 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa vijk/k izekf.kr ekurs gq, vkjksi&i= U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;kA

¶19

fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fuxjkdkj&vfHk;qDr ds fo:) mDr /kkjk dk vkjksi i`Fkd ls fojfpr dj lquk;k o le>k;k x;kA vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls vkjksfir vijk/k dks izekf.kr djus gsrq dqy 07 xokgku dks izLrqr dj ijhf{kr djok;k x;k ,oa izn'kZ ih&01 yxk;r ih&07 rd nLrkost izLrqr dj iznf'kZr djok;k x;sA vfHk;kstu lk{; ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr dk /kkjk 313 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds vUrxZr ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA ckn fopkj.k fuxjkdkj&vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 411 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa nks"kfl) fd;k tkdj rhu o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl o 1]000 :i;s ds vFkZn.M ls n.Mkfn"V fd;k x;kA

¶20

mDr fu.kZ; ds fo:) fuxjkdkj&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls vihy izLrqr djus ij fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk fu.kZ; fnukad 29-01-2014 ls mldh vihy fujLr dj nh xbZA bUgha fu.kZ;ksa ls O;fFkr gksdj ;g iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk bl U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr dh xbZ gSA

¶21

nksuksa i{kksa dh cgl lquh xbZA fuxjkdkj&vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ jgk fd os fuxjkdkj&vfHk;qDr dh /kkjk 411 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa dh xbZ nks"kfl)h dks dksbZ pqukSrh ugha nsrs gSa ,oa mldks Hkqxrh gqbZ ltk ij NksM+rs gq, iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk dks fuLrkfjr djus dk fuosnu djrs gSaA mudk ;g Hkh dFku jgk fd fuxjkdkj o"kZ 2012 ls vUoh{kk Hkqxr jgk gS rFkk vfHk;qDr dks rhu o"kZ ds dkjkokl ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlesa ls og yxHkx 02 o"kZ 02 ekg dh vof/k vfHkj{kk esa O;rhr dj pqdk gSA vr% ujeh dk :[k viukrs gq, fuxjkdkj&vfHk;qDr dks Hkqxrh gqbZ ltk ij NksM+us dh izkFkZuk dh xbZA mUgksaus vius rdZ leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa dk voyEc fy;kA

¶22

1- Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0015/2012 : (2012) 2 SCC 648

¶23

2- Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. MANU/SC/1627/1998 : (1998) 9 SCC 678

[2025:RJ-JP:6767]

[CRLR-178/2014]

(3 of 4)

fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd us bldk fojks/k djrs gq, rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa }kjk fuxjkdkj&vfHk;qDr dks nks"kfl) djrs gq, ikfjr n.Mkns'k leqfpr gSA

¶28

rdksZa ij fopkj fd;k x;kA izLrqr U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa dk /;kuiwoZd v/;;u fd;k x;kA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

¶29

izdj.k dh ?kVuk fnukad 03-08-2012 dh gSA ?kVuk dks yxHkx 13 o"kZ iw.kZ gks pqds gSaA ;|fi fuxjkdkj&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls nks"kflf) dks dksbZ pqukSrh ugha nh xbZ gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa xq.kkoxq.k ij nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa ds vkykSP; fu.kZ;ksa dk miyC/k lk{; ds izdk'k esa fo'ys"k.k o foospu fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA dsoy fuxjkdkj&vfHk;qDr dks Hkqxrh gqbZ ltk ij NksM+us dh lhfer izkFkZuk ij fopkj fd;k tkuk gSA

¶30

fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fuxjkdkj&vfHk;qDr dks vkjksfir vijk/k esa nks"kfl) fd;k tkdj rhu o"kZ ds dkjkokl ,oa vFkZn.M ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k gSA fuxjkdkj&vfHk;qDr mls nh xbZ rhu o"kZ dh ltk ds fo:) yxHkx 02 o"kZ 02 ekg rd vfHkj{kk esa jg pqdk gSA og o"kZ 2012 ls vFkkZr fiNys 13 o"kZ ls vUoh{kk Hkqxr jgk gSA vr% vc mls dkjkokl Hkqxrk;s tkus gsrq tsy Hksts tkus ls fdlh lkFkZd mn~ns'; dh iwfrZ ugha gksxhA vfHk;qDr dks fn;s x;s dkjkokl ds n.M dks Hkqxrh gqbZ ltk rd ?kVkus@lhfer djus ds laca/k esa izLrqr U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa esa izfrikfnr fuEu fl)kUr egRoiw.kZ o lqlaxr gS %

¶31

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶32

"There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."

¶33

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶34

"...considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:6767]

[CRLR-178/2014]

be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."

¶39

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds mi;qZDr U;kf;d fofuf'p;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ,oa orZeku izdj.k ds rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, fuxjkdkj&vfHk;qDr dks fn;s x;s vf/kdre rhu o"kZ ds dkjkokl dks ?kVkrs gq, mlds LFkku ij mls vc rd Hkqxrh gqbZ ltk ij NksM+k tkuk U;k; ds fgr esa i;kZIr vkSj U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

¶40

ifj.kker% fuxjkdkj&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk nks"kflf) dh gn rd fujLr dh tkrh gSA n.Mkns'k ds fcUnq ij Lohdkj dh tkrh gS ,oa fopkj.k U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr n.Mkns'k dks mikUrfjr@la'kksf/kr djrs gq, rhu o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl ds LFkku ij fuxjkdkj&vfHk;qDr dks vc rd dh Hkqxrh gqbZ ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k tkrk gSA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kjksfir vFkZn.M dh jkf'k ,oa vne vnk;xh vFkZn.M dh ltk ;Fkkor jgsxhA fuxjkdkj&vfHk;qDr tekur ij vktkn gS] vr% mlds tekur eqpyds fujLr fd;s tkrs gSaA

¶41

izdj.k esa tCr'kqnk eksVjlkbZfdy dk lqiqnZxhukek o tekurukek ckn xqtjus fe;kn vihy fujLr le>k tkosA

¶42

rnuqlkj ;g iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk ,oa layXu izkFkZuk i=] ;fn dksbZ yafcr gks] fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

¶43

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶44

VISHAL SHARMA /04

Jagram Urf Pappu v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagram Urf Pappu v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramlal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Bhagwan Singh S/O Shri Rugnath Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Chand Jain S/O Shri Khayali Chand Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Chandni Sharma W/O Shri Deepak Dudeja D/O Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijendra Kumar Son of Late Shri Phool Singh Vs Smt. Anita Kumari Wife of Vijendra Kumar

Mukesh Vishnoi S/O Shri Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan