Allowed¶25

Pushpendra @ Pharma Son of Dhruvsingh @ Dhuji v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2025SOSA/2095/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court suspends sentence of accused who spent 5 years 11 months in custody; incident at applicant's house; applicant injured; charge-sheet only against him; PW.1 supports self-defence; bail granted on personal bond Rs.1 lakh and two sureties Rs.50,000 each.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence pending appeal subject to furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each. ¶25

Pushpendra @ Pharma Son of Dhruvsingh @ Dhuji Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No.

¶3

2095/2024

¶4

¶5

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.406/2024

¶6

Pushpendra @ Pharma Son Of Dhruvsingh @ Dhuji, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Kamalpura Ps Bhusawar Dist Bharatpur Rajasthan (At Present Confined In Central Jail Bharatpur)

¶7

----Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Applicant(s)	: Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jaswant Singh Rathore
For State	: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Additional Govt. Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Assistant Govt. Advocate
	Ms. Neha Goyal
For Complainant(s)	: Mr. Timan Singh

¶12

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

¶13

Order

¶14

08/01/2025

¶15

Accused/applicant has preferred this application for

¶16

suspension of sentence.

¶17

Heard on application for suspension of sentence.

¶18

It is contended by counsel for the applicant that applicant has remained in custody for a period of 5 years and 11 months. It is also contended that incident took place at the house of applicant. Complainant party were assailants. It is also contended that accused himself has received fracture and at the time of his arrest, injuries were noted in the arrest memo. It is further

¶19

[SOSA-2095/2024]

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

contended that allegation was against four persons, charge-sheet was filed only against the present applicant. It is contended that from the statement of PW.1, it is revealed that deceased attacked the applicant and a fight took place in which deceased fell from the stairs and this witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution.

¶22

Learned Additional Govt. Advocate and counsel for complainant have opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is contended that deceased sustained head injury which was caused by the applicant, hence, applicant is not entitled to bail.

¶23

We have considered the contentions.

¶24

Considering the contentions of counsel for the applicant; also taking note of the fact that witnesses have stated that incident took place on the roof of house belonging to applicant; that applicant has sustained injuries including fracture; that applicant has remained in custody for a period of 5 years and 11 months and disposal of appeal will take time, we deem it proper to allow the application for suspension of sentence.

¶25

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused/applicant in Sessions Case No.40/2021(10/2020) (01/2020), (CIS No.41/2021) shall remain suspended if the accused/applicant furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[SOSA-2095/2024]

¶28

trial Court to the effect that he shall appear before this Court as

¶29

and when called upon to do so.

¶30

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶31

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J