Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1367 (RAJ)

Praveen v. State

2021-08-05

DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT The appellant applicant herein stands convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 08.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Abu Road, District Sirohi in Sessions Case No.67/2016 (06/2016): Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section 460 IPC 10 Years’ R.I. Rs.10,000/- 6 Months’ R.I. Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.25,000/- 1 Year’s R.I. Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.25,000/- 1 Year’s R.I. Section 380 IPC 5 Years’ R.I. Rs.5,000/- 2 Months’ R.I. 4/25 of the Arms Act 1 Year’s S.I. Rs.2,000/- 1 Month’s S.I. Learned counsel Shri S.S. Gour representing the applicant appellant urges that after rejection of the previous applications for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the appellant, the application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the co- accused Pankaj Kumar (276/2021) has been accepted by this Court and that the case of the applicant appellant is in no manner distinguishable. It is rather contended that the evidence of the prosecution as against the appellant is weaker as compared to that in existence against the co-accused Pankaj Kumar. On this grounds, learned counsel Shri Gour craved indulgence of bail for the applicant appellant during pendency of the appeal. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel representing the complainant have vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel and urged that it is a case of gruesome double blind murders and wholesome incriminating recoveries were effected from the appellant during the course of investigation and thus, he does not deserve indulgence of bail during pendency of appeal. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned Judgment and the record. It may be stated here that previous two applications filed on behalf of the applicant appellant were for seeking interim bail and no consideration was ever made on his case on merits. Thus, for all practical purposes, this is a first application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the appellant. After going through record, we find that the prosecution case is based totally on circumstantial evidence primarily in form of recoveries. Thus, for all practical purposes, this is a first application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the appellant. After going through record, we find that the prosecution case is based totally on circumstantial evidence primarily in form of recoveries. While examining the application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the co-accused Pankaj Kumar, we have found that there are significant loopholes in the prosecution case regarding alleged recoveries and there is a strong indication from the record regarding the investigation being tainted. The appellant is in custody since 10.12.2015 and his case is not much distinguishable from that of the co-accused Pankaj Kumar whose application for suspension of sentences has been accepted by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2021. In this background, we are of the view that the appellant has available to him strong grounds so as to assail the impugned Judgment. Hearing of the appeal is unlikely in the near future. In this view of the matter and, having regard to the facts and circumstance as available on record, it is considered just and proper to suspend the sentences awarded to the appellant, during pendency of the appeal. 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 Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Abu Road, District Sirohi, vide judgment dated 08.04.2019 in Sessions Case No.67/2016 (06/2016) against the appellant-applicant Praveen, 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 06.09.2021 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. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 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.