Partly allowed

Mohammad Irfan @ Bittal S/O Abdul Hameed v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Jan 2025SOSA/1861/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of three connected suspension of sentence applications. The court allowed suspension for Sohel and Mohammad Irfan due to lack of stabbing allegations and bail history. Farman's application was dismissed due to specific stabbing allegations and recovery of evidence at his instance.

What did the court decide?

Applications for suspension of sentence allowed for Sohel and Mohammad Irfan upon furnishing bond and sureties; application dismissed for Farman.

Mohammad Irfan @ Bittal S/O Abdul Hameed Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:1579-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2187/2024

¶4

¶5

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.362/2024

¶6

Sohel Son of Aslam Shah, Aged About 21 Years, Resident of House No. 36, Rewdi Ki Kothi, Neelam Shah Colony, Bans Badanpura, P.S. Galta Gate, Jaipur (Rajasthan). (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶7

----Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajastahn through P.P.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

Connected With

¶12

D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1861/2024

¶13

¶14

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.361/2024

¶15

Mohammad Irfan @ Bittal S/o Abdul Hameed, Aged About 20 Years, R/o House No. 34, Rewdi Ki Kotti, Neelam Shah Colony, Bas Badanpura, P.S. Galta Gate Jaipur (Rajasthan). (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶16

----Applicant

¶17

Versus

¶18

State of Rajasthan, through P.P.

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1960/2024

¶21

¶22

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.381/2024

¶23

Farman @ Chaddi S/o Shri Rashid Khan, Aged About 21 Years, H. No. 39 Mirashiyo Ka Moahalla Neelam Shah Colony, Bans Badanpura P.S. Galtagate Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

¶24

----Applicant

¶25

Versus

¶26

[2025:RJ-JP:1579-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-2187/2024]

¶27

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶28

----Respondent

¶29

For Applicant(s)	:	Mr. Girish Khandelwal in SOSA No.2187/2024, Mr. S.S. Hasan, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Aquif Khan & Mr. Abdul Basit Naqvi in SOSA No.1861/2024 & Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav in SOSA No.1960/2024
For State	:	Mr. Amit Punia, Addl. G.A.
For	:	None Present
Complainant/Victim

¶30

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

¶31

Order

¶32

10/01/2025

¶33

Accused-applicants have preferred these applications for suspension of sentence.

¶34

Heard on applications for suspension of sentence.

¶35

It is informed by learned Addl. G.A. that complainant/victim has been intimated about filing of these applications for suspension of sentence. Report in this regard has also been submitted and the same is taken on record. Despite intimation, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant/victim.

¶36

It is contended by counsel appearing for the accusedapplicants-Sohel & Mohammad Irfan that they were on bail during trial. It is also contended that there is no allegation against Sohel and Mohammad Irfan of causing injuries by knife to the deceased.

¶37

It is contended by counsel appearing for the applicantFarman that principal eye witness Mohammad Aadil was declared

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:1579-DB]

[SOSA-2187/2024]

hostile by the prosecution. The recovery of blood stained clothes and knife also do not connect the applicant-Farman, as the blood group was inconclusive. It is also contended that the principal eye witness Mohammad Aadil has not identified the accused.

¶42

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed these applications for suspension of sentence. It is contended that blood stained clothes of applicant-Farman and blood stained knife were recovered at the instance of applicant-Farman. Initially, PW-4 clearly stated the name of accused-Farman as the one who stabbed the deceased with knife. However, after calling this witness in examination for as many as 4-5 times, this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.

¶43

We have considered the contentions.

¶44

Considering the contentions put forth by counsel appearing for the accused/applicants-Sohel and Mohammad Irfan; also taking note of the fact that applicants-Sohel and Mohammad Irfan were on bail during trial and there is no allegation against them of stabbing the deceased, we are inclined to allow the applications for suspension of sentence filed by applicants-Sohel and Mohammad Irfan.

¶45

Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence filed by applicants-Sohel and Mohammad Irfan are allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused/applicant-Sohel and Mohammad Irfan in Sessions Case No.13/2021(C.I.S. No.415/2021) shall remain suspended if the accused/applicantsSohel and Mohammad Irfan furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the

(4 of 4)

[SOSA-2187/2024]

[2025:RJ-JP:1579-DB]

satisfaction of the learned Trial Court to the effect that they shall appear before this Court as and when called upon to do so. 10. As far as application for suspension of sentence filed by applicant-Farman is concerned, there is specific allegation of stabbing against him in the initial statement of PW-4, further there is recovery of blood stained clothes and knife at his instance, which were found having human blood, hence, we are not inclined to entertain the application for suspension of sentence filed by applicant-Farman and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

¶50

A copy of this order be placed in the connected file.

¶51

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶52

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶53

AMIT/38-40

Mohammad Irfan @ Bittal S/O Abdul Hameed v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Irfan @ Bittal S/O Abdul Hameed 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Kumar S/O Yadram Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltdandanr Vs Miss Shashi Rangraj Mehta

Om Prakash Vs Smt Krishna

Mohd Aejaj Akbar S/O Abdul Majeed Vs Union of India

Farman @ Chaddi S/O Shri Rashid Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandrababu M. S/O Shri Madhavan Vs Mr. Abhay Kumar