Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1712 (RAJ)

Shokat, S/o. Shri Alladita v. State Of Rajasthan

2024-12-17

MADAN GOPAL VYAS, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2024
ORDER : 1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 09.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.7, Bikaner, District Bikaner in Sessions Case No.09/2020: Offences Sentences Fine 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- and in default of which to further undergo three months’ S.I. 450 IPC Seven Years’ S.I. Rs.3,000/- and in default of which to further undergo one month’s S.I. 2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and for release on bail. 3. The salient facts of the case, as observed by this Court, are that on 10.12.2014, the complainant alleges that during a dispute between his daughter and her husband (son-in-law), the son-in-law entered their house and fatally wounded his wife by slitting her throat, causing her immediate death. 4. Mr. Devender Singh Thind, learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant-appellant submits that though the merits of the case warrant intervention, but he is restricting his arguments to the prolonged period of incarceration endured by the appellant i.e. more than 10 years. 4.1 Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards EXP-29, the Fard Giraftari, which indicates that the arrest was effected on 11.12.2014 at about 5:00 PM. 4.2 The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-applicant is that as the applicant has already undergone the custody of more than 10 years and there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in near future, thus, in view of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 15.09.2022 in Sonadhar v. The State of Chhattisgarh : SLP (Crl.) No.529/2021, the sentence of the applicant be suspended and he be enlarged on bail. 4.3 Further submissions have been made that there are no reasons and / or extenuating circumstances for denial of bail. Submissions have also been made with reference to order dated 05.10.2021 in Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh : SLP (Crl.) No.4633/2021, wherein also observations have been made regarding grant of bail in the appeal at the High Court stage except certain exceptions and that none of the exceptions are applicable in the present case. 5. Submissions have also been made with reference to order dated 05.10.2021 in Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh : SLP (Crl.) No.4633/2021, wherein also observations have been made regarding grant of bail in the appeal at the High Court stage except certain exceptions and that none of the exceptions are applicable in the present case. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor though opposes the application for suspension of sentence with the submission that as the appellant-applicant has committed heinous offence, suspension of sentence of such offender would send adverse message in the society. However, he has not denied that the appellant-applicant has already undergone the custody of more than 10 years during trial and after sentence. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. Looking to the fact that criminal appeal is pertaining to year 2022 and is pending at the stage of hearing and that there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh (supra) observed an exception, which could be a broad guideline, which reads as follows :- "1. Heinous nature of crime : (a) Prohibited categories : To ensure public peace and the well-being of the society, life convicts who are hardened criminals, repeat offenders, kidnappers, in crimes related to massacre (three or more than three murders), habitual criminals, and fall in prohibited categories as per the U.P. Jail Standing Policy-no bail should be granted." 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonadhar (supra), while dealing with SMW (Crl.) No.4/2021 pertaining to ‘life convicts in jail whose appeals are pending before the High Court’ inter-alia, issued the following directions :- “We consider appropriate to issue directions in terms of the aforesaid suggestions to the Patna High Court and on a pari materia basis to even the other High Courts. However, in order to carry out this exercise, the data would have to be compiled of such of the persons who have been in custody for more than 10 years and more than 14 years, with these persons being considered for grant of bail pending appeal, if there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in the near future, unless there are reasons for denial of bail. We can understand if any of the parties is delaying the appeal itself but short of that, we are of the view that all persons who have completed 10 years of sentence and appeal is not in proximity of hearing with no extenuating circumstances should be enlarged on bail.” 10. Prior to that in the case of Saudan Singh (supra) also observations were made regarding grant of bail in cases where convicts have undergone sentence for sufficiently long time and appeals were pending at the High Court stage with exceptions indicated therein. 11. In the present case as observed herein-before, the appellant-applicant has already undergone sentence of more than 10 years, and apparently, there are no chances of hearing of the present appeal in near future. Except for the fact that the appellant-applicant was involved in offence leading to his conviction for life, nothing has been brought on record by way of extenuating circumstances for denial of suspension of sentence. 12. Consequently, following the order in the case of Sonadhar (supra) and observations made in Saudan Singh (supra), without making any observations on merits of the case only on account of the fact that more than 10 years’ sentences has already been undergone by the appellant-applicant, this Court deems it appropriate to suspend the substantive sentence of the appellant-applicant during the pendency of the appeal. 13. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that substantive sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.7, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.09/2020 against the appellant-applicant Shokat S/o Shri Alladita 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 learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 20.01.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below: 1. That he will appear before the trial court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant change the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. That he will appear before the trial court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant change the place of residence, he will give in writing his 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. 14. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused-applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial court. In case the said accused-applicant did not appear before the trial court, learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.