Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 120 (RAJ)

Manoj @ Shankar v. State of Rajasthan

2020-01-10

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, learned Addl. Advocate General and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has chosen not to file reply to this application for suspension of sentences and proposes to argue the matter orally. 3. The appellant-applicant herein stands convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 341 and 302/149 IPC vide judgment dated 30.09.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases), Dungarpur in Sessions Case No.188/2018. 4. Learned counsel Shri T.C. Sharma representing the applicantappellant submits that the appellant who is a juvenile, was tried as an adult pursuant to the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. As per the highest prosecution allegation, the fatal head injury caused to the deceased Magan was a sharp weapon blow which is attributed specifically by the eyewitness Arjun (PW.19) to the accused Praveen. He further submits that the applicant-appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. He thus, craves indulgence of bail to the appellant during pendency of the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned AAG Shri Farzand Ali and learned Public Prosecutor Shri R.R. Chhaparwal, opposed the submissions advanced by appellant s counsel and urge that the applicantappellant does not deserve indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, as available on record and to be specific, the fact that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of commission of offence and as the fatal blow is not assigned to him, the instant application for suspension of sentences is accepted. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, as available on record and to be specific, the fact that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of commission of offence and as the fatal blow is not assigned to him, the instant application for suspension of sentences is accepted. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Dungarpur vide judgment dated 30.09.2019 in Sessions Case No.188/2018 (CIS No.188/2018) against the appellant-applicant Manoj @ Shankar S/o Shri Nathalal 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.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 10.02.2020 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. 7. 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.