Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 1032
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Anil Kumar Upman, J.
Vikram Abrol – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Stay/suspension of Sentence Application No. 1860 of 2024, S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 501 of 2024
Decided On : 08-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ashindra Gautam, Kinshuk Jain, Sourabh Jain, Jay Upadhyay
For the Respondent: Sher Singh
IMPORTANT POINT
The court suspended the sentence based on the applicant's good conduct and lack of evidence for rash driving, allowing bail pending the writ petition.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279 and 304A - Conviction for rash driving and causing death - The accused was convicted and sentenced to two years, later reduced to six months for Section 304A IPC - The court considered the absence of evidence for rash driving and the applicant's conduct during trial. (Paras 2, 5, 6)
(B) Bail - Suspension of sentence - The court found it appropriate to suspend the sentence due to the lack of immediate prospects for hearing the writ petition and the applicant's compliance with bail conditions during trial. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for offences under IPC Sections 279 and 304A, sentenced to two years, and later appealed for a reduced sentence, maintaining conviction but reducing the sentence to six months.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the suspension of the sentence, emphasizing the applicant's good conduct and the lack of immediate hearing prospects.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant's sentence should be suspended pending the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's conduct and the absence of evidence for rash driving justified the suspension of the sentence.
Result: Application for suspension of sentence allowed.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence.
2. The accused petitioner has been convicted for offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and sentenced to maximum punishment for two years vide judgment dated 21.11.2019 passed by learned Judge, Gram Nyayalaya, Neemrana in Criminal Original Case No. 23/449/13. The accused petitioner challenged the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence in appeal (No. 29/2019) before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Behror, Alwar. The learned appellate court vide judgment dated 05.03.2024, partly allowed the appeal and while maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner for offences under Section 279 and 304A IPC, has awarded maximum sentence of six months for offence under Section 304A IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused petitioner was on bail during trial as well as during pendency of the appeal and he did not misuse the said liberty. He further submits that there is no evidence available on record that the applicant was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The applicant is in custody since 05.03.2024 and there is no immediate prospect of the instant criminal writ petition being heard and decided in near future. Learned counsel thus, prays that the instant application for suspension of sentence may be accepted and the accused-petitioner may be released on bail during pendency of the writ petition.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application and submits that both learned trial court as well as learned appellate court have rightly recorded conviction of the accused applicant for offences under Section 279 and 304A IPC and therefore, this application is also liable to be dismissed. He however, admits that the applicant was on bail during the course of trial as well as during pendency of appeal.
5. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant and having regard to the facts and circumstances as available on the record, especially the fact that there is no immediate prospect of the writ petition being heard and decided in near future; applicant has not misused the liberty of bail during trial as well as in pendency of appeal, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused during pendency of the instant criminal writ petition.
6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, Neemrana, Alwra vide judgment dated 21.11.2019 in Criminal Original Case No. 23/449/13 and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Behror, District Alwar vide judgment dated 05.03.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2019 against the appellant-applicant - Vikram Abrol S/o Shri. Prem Sagar Abrol shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid writ petition 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 the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 08.05.2024 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the criminal writ petition on the conditions indicated below:
1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the criminal writ petition is decided.
2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/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.
7. 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 orig
