Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1199 (RAJ)

Ramkanya W/o Jagdish Das v. State of Rajasthan

2025-05-01

CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2025
ORDER : 1. The appellants-applicants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 16.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.37/2015: Appellant - Smt. Ramkanya: Offence Sentence Fine 302/120-B IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- and in default of which to further undergo one month additional S.I. 201 IPC Three Years’ R.I. Rs. 5,000/- and in default of which to further undergo one month additional S.I. Appellant – Nanudas @ Rameshwar: Offence Sentence Fine 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- and in default of which to further undergo one month additional S.I. 120-B IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- and in default of which to further undergo one month additional S.I. 201 IPC Three Years’ R.I. Rs.5,000/- and in default of which to further undergo one month additional S.I. 2. The appellants-applicants have preferred the applications 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 discerned by this Hon’ble Court, reveal that a report was lodged on 11.01.2015 by the complainant regarding an incident that occurred on 10.01.2015 when the deceased Jagdish Das went with Nanu Das, but did not return back. Subsequently, the body of the deceased Jagdish Das was found on 11.01.2015. 4. Mr. J.V.S. Deora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants-appellants, submits that there are no previous criminal antecedents of the appellants. 4.1 Learned counsel further 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 appellants i.e. more than 10 years. 4.2 The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellants- applicants is that as the appellants have 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 applicants be suspended and they be enlarged on bail. 4.3 Further submissions have been made that there are no reasons and / or extenuating circumstances for denial of 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. Learned Public Prosecutor though opposes the application for suspension of sentence with the submission that as the appellants-applicants have committed heinous offence, suspension of sentence of such offender would send adverse message in the society. However, he has shown to this Court the actual custody report and antecedent report of the applicants-appellants and submits that the actual custody of more than 10 years of both the applicants-appellants is a correct fact and both the applicants- appellants do not have any criminal antecedents. The custody report and the antecedent report are taken on record. 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 2019 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 appellants-applicants have already undergone sentence of more than 10 years; there are no criminal antecedents against them, and apparently, there are no chances of hearing of the present appeal in near future. Except for the fact that the appellants- applicants were involved in offence leading to their 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 appellants-applicants and there are no criminal antecedents, this Court deems it appropriate to suspend the substantive sentence of the appellants-applicants during the pendency of the appeal. 13. 13. Accordingly, the instant applications for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that substantive sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.37/2015 against the appellants-applicants (1) Smt. Ramkanya W/o Jagdish Das and (2) Nanudas @ Rameshwar S/o Shri Shanker Das shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided each of them execute 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 their appearance in this Court on 30.06.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below: 1. That they will appear before the trial court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing 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. 14. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused- applicants were 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-applicants do not appear before the trial court, learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.