Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 522 (RAJ)

Manjit Singh v. State, Through PP

2019-02-13

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicants Manjit Singh S/o Shri Hukam Singh and Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh S/o Kiran Singh, who have been convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No. 24/2011 vide judgment dated 07.06.2018. 2. Learned counsel Mr. Dhirendra Singh, representing the appellant-applicants, at the outset, does not press the application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of the appellant- applicant Manjit Singh. However, regarding the applicant No. 2 Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh, he contended that his case is in no manner distinguishable from that of the co-accused Kailash Dan @ K.D. Charan and Mahaveer Singh, whose sentences have been suspended by this court. He urges that there is a clear distinction in the prosecution case regarding the manner in which the assault was made inasmuch as Ram Singh, Vicky Singh, Balveer @ Banuda and Manjit Singh are alleged to be occupants of the first vehicle from which Anand Pal Singh fired fatal gunshot at the deceased Rakesh. He urges that so far as the remaining accused including the applicant Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh are concerned, they were admittedly present in the second vehicle and none of the occupants of the said vehicle was armed with any weapon. He, thus, urges that the application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of the applicant accused Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh deserves to be accepted on parity. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. J.S. Choudhary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants counsel. However, they too are not in position to dispute the fact that case of Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh is in no manner distinguishable from that of the co-accused Kailash Dan @ K.D. Charan and Mahaveer Singh, whose applications for suspension of sentences have been allowed by this court and who were alleged to be the occupants of the second vehicle from which no gunshot was admittedly fired. 4. In this background and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused appellant No. 2 Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh. 5. 4. In this background and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused appellant No. 2 Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh. 5. Accordingly, while the application for suspension of sentence preferred on behalf of appellant-applicant Manjit Singh S/o Shri Hukam Singh is dismissed as being not pressed, the application for suspension of sentence preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu vide judgment dated 07.06.2018 in Sessions Case No. 24/2011 against the appellant- applicant Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh S/o Kiran Singh shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 14.03.2019 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 6. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicant(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.