Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 686 (RAJ)

Chatra Ram @ Shanker v. State of Rajasthan

2014-03-11

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 6.1.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road, District Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') on an application filed by the petitioner for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that vide judgment dated 24.9.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pindwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 734/2012, the petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 l.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment for each offence and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- is also imposed for each offence. It has also been ordered by the Trial Court that in default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall further undergo one month's Simple imprisonment for each offence. 3. Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 24.9.2013, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 31/2013 before the Appellate Court, which is pending. Along with the said appeal, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 24.9.2013. The said application was rejected by the Appellate Court vide impugned order while observing that since the petitioner was not granted the benefit of bail during the pendency of the trial, the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is not liable to be suspended. 4. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not released on bail at the time of pronouncement of decision by the learned Trial Court because at that time sureties were not available. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that even though the petitioner has served considerable period of sentence during the pendency of the trial and looking to this fact alone, he is entitled to be released on bail. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the sentence of the co-accused Dinesh has already been suspended by the Appellate Court and, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the sentence of the co-accused Dinesh has already been suspended by the Appellate Court and, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, argued that the order passed by the learned Appellate Court dated 6.1.2014 may be quashed and set aside and the sentence of the petitioner may be suspended. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order passed by the learned Appellate Court dated 6.1.2014 and has argued that as the petitioner was not granted the benefit of bail during the pendency of the trial, the learned Appellate Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for suspension of sentence. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 8. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner for suspension of sentence solely on the ground that the petitioner was not granted the benefit of bail during the pendency of the trial. This Court is of the opinion that this fact alone is not a justified reason to reject the application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of the petitioner. The Appellate Court should have found the reasons for not granting the benefit of bail to the accused during the pendency of the trial. Otherwise also, the Appellate Court is expected to decide the application of suspension of sentence on its own merit and while deciding the same it can also consider the fact that the accused was not granted the benefit of bail during the trial, but only the said circumstance cannot be made basis for rejecting the application for suspension of sentence. 9. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner remained in custody since his arrest i.e. from 11.9.2012 and has served a considerable period of sentence. He was sentenced for two years of simple imprisonment and till date, he has served more than one and half year in custody. It is also not in dispute that sentence of other accused Dinesh, though convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C. and sentenced for two years of imprisonment, has already been suspended by the Appellate Court vide order dated 8.10.2013. 10. Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, this criminal misc. It is also not in dispute that sentence of other accused Dinesh, though convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C. and sentenced for two years of imprisonment, has already been suspended by the Appellate Court vide order dated 8.10.2013. 10. Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, this criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. The order dated 6.1.2014 passed by the Appellate Court is quashed. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence is allowed and the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 24.9.2013 is hereby suspended provided the petitioner Chatra Ram @ Shanker furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Appellate Court for his appearance before appellant Court on 15.4.2014 and whenever ordered to do so with the incorporation in the bond that as and when he will shift his place of residence, he will intimate to the learned Appellate Court and his Lawyer about his new place of residence.Petition allowed. *******