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

2021 Supreme(Raj) 1896

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Devendra Kachhawaha, J.
Vishwajeet Brahmin - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 960/2021
Decided On : 17-12-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Tirth Raj Singh Sodha., for the Appellant; Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, Pp., for the Respondent.

The court established that a convicted individual may have their sentence suspended if they were previously on bail and the trial process is prolonged.

Headnote:

Suspension - Conviction - IPC Section 406, Cr.P.C. Section 397(1) - The court allowed the suspension of sentence based on the accused's prior bail status, judicial custody, and the nature of the offense, emphasizing the need for fair trial proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The accused was convicted under Section 406 IPC and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed by the appellate court, and the accused has been in judicial custody since the appellate decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused was on bail during the trial, has been in custody since the appellate judgment, and the offense is triable by a Magistrate, warranting the suspension of the sentence.

Issues: Whether the sentence should be suspended pending the hearing of the revision petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the circumstances, including the accused's prior bail and the nature of the offense, justified the suspension of the sentence under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C.

Result: The application for suspension of sentence is allowed.

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

2. Admit. Issue notice. Record has already been received.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notices on behalf of the respondent - State of Rajasthan. Hence, notices need not be issued.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application seeking suspension of sentences (SoS No. 288/2021).

5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner stated that the accused-petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC for a period of one year's simple imprisonment by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, shahpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal Case No. 148/2003 vide judgment and order dated 15.07.2017 and the same was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2017 (CIS No. 45/2017) vide judgment and order dated 15.11.2021 and since the date of decision by the learned Appellate Court, the accused is in judicial custody; that during the trial of the case, the accused was on bail; that the offence is triable by the Magistrate; and that the hearing of the revision petition will take time, therefore, sentences awarded to the accused may kindly be suspended.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application seeking suspension of sentences. However, he does not wish to file reply to the application.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the facts that during the trial of the case, the accused was on bail; that the accused is in judicial custody since the date of judgment by the learned Appellate Court; that the alleged offence is triable by the First Class Magistrate; that the hearing of the revision petition will take sufficiently long time, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the application for suspension of sentence deserves to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence (SoS No. 288/2021) filed under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, shahpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal Case No. 148/2003 vide judgment and order dated 15.07.2017, as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2017 (CIS No. 45/2017) vide judgment and order dated 15.11.2021 against applicant-petitioner, Vishwajeet Brahmin S/o Upendra Viswas, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid revision and he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing 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 17.01.2022 and whenever ordered to do so, till disposal of the revision on the conditions indicated below:-

    1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January every year till the revision is decided.

2. That if the applicant 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.

9. 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 related 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 be taken into account for statistical purposes relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial Court. In case the accused applicant fail 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