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

2023 Supreme(Raj) 984

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Uma Shanker Vyas, J.
Kanhaiyalal @ Banty Harijan – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1278/2022 in S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 161/2018
Decided On : 16-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Umesh Kant Vyas, Advocate, S.S. Rajpurohit, Advocate

The court has the discretion to suspend substantive sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. based on the arguments and facts of the case.

Headnote:

Suspension of Sentence - Section 389 Cr.P.C. - The court allowed the application for suspension of sentence and ordered the substantive sentences to remain suspended till the final disposal of the appeal, with the accused being released on bail under certain conditions.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant had already served about 8 years of a maximum 10-year sentence and sought suspension of sentence, citing the grant of bail to a similarly situated co-accused and lack of evidence to hold the convict guilty.

Finding of the Court:

The court found it to be a fit case for suspending the substantive sentences awarded to the accused appellant, considering the arguments and the facts and circumstances of the case.

Issues: Application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court may suspend substantive sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. if it deems fit based on the arguments and facts of the case.

Final Decision: The application for suspension of sentence was allowed, and the substantive sentences were ordered to remain suspended till the final disposal of the appeal, with the accused being released on bail under specified conditions.

JUDGMENT

Uma Shanker Vyas, J. - Heard.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on application for suspension of sentence.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that accused appellant has been awarded maximum sentence of 10 years and out of that he has already served about 8 years of sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that similarly situated co-accused Sunil @ Pintu Rao has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Counsel further submits that there is no evidence on record to hold the convict guilty of the offences and hearing of the appeal shall taken long time, therefore, the present suspension of sentence may be allowed.

4. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the substantive sentences awarded to the accused appellant.

5. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentences passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Chittorgarh, vide judgment dated 20.12.2017 in Sessions Case No.126/2016 against the applicant Kanhaiyalal @ Banty Harijan S/o Puran Rathore, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to deposit the fine amount as imposed by the learned trial Court, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 17.2.2023 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(s) changes 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.

    4. Petitioner shall deposit the fine amount as imposed by the learned trial Court.

    6. 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.

    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 Back to top