SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Raj) 1540

H.R.PANWAR
GURMEL SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
J.P.S.CHAUDHARY, S.P.SHARMA

Judgment

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the judgment and orders impugned of the courts below as well as the record of the trial court.

( 2 ) ADMIT. Issue notice. Mr. JPS Chaudhary, Public prosecutor appearing for the State accepts notice. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for suspension of sentence.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for last six months. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody for last six months as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I think is just and proper to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner.

( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, the bail application filed under Section 397/401 Cr. P. C. is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the trial court and affirmed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, vide judgment dated 17-12-2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 30/1997 against applicantpetitioner gurmel Singh S/o Jangeer Singh shall remain suspended till final d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top