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

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 551

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J
SUBHASH BHAI – Appellant
Versus
KANA RAM – Respondent
SOSR / 38 / 2025



Advocates:
Mr. Jay Prakash, Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with Mr. Om Prakash Choudhary

The court may suspend a substantive sentence and grant bail if there is no imminent hearing for the revision application, ensuring fair treatment of the accused.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 438 and 442 - Second application for suspension of sentence - Petitioner in custody since 30.01.2025 - No chance of hearing of revision in near future - Court finds it fit to suspend substantive sentence and grant bail subject to conditions. (Paras 1, 2, 3)

(B) Bail - Conditions for bail - Petitioner required to deposit 50% of cheque amount and execute personal bond for appearance in court - Failure to appear may lead to cancellation of bail. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner has surrendered and is in custody since 30.01.2025, with no imminent hearing for the revision application. The second application for suspension of sentence was filed due to the prolonged custody.

Findings of Court:
The court finds it appropriate to suspend the substantive sentence and allow bail under specified conditions, including the deposit of 50% of the cheque amount.

Issues: The main issue was whether the substantive sentence should be suspended given the circumstances of the case and the duration of custody.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the lack of a timely hearing for the revision application justified the suspension of the sentence, emphasizing the need for fair treatment of the accused.

Result: Application for suspension of sentence allowed.

Judgment :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

2. This is second application for suspension of sentence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that petitioner has surrendered before the concerned trial court and now he is in custody since 30.01.2025 and there is no chance of hearing of the revision in near future, therefore, the substantive sentence of the petitioner(s) may be suspended and he may be released on bail.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second application for suspension of sentence.

5. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner(s) and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that there is no chance of hearing of the revision in near future, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the substantive sentence awarded to the accused petitioner(s).

6. Accordingly, the second application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 438/442 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentences passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Reodar, District Sirohi in Criminal Case No.366/2010 vide order dated 19.09.2018 as affirmed by the learned Session Judge, District Sirohi vide order dated 09.12.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.43/2018 against the petitioner/applicant(s) – Subhash Bhai S/o Shri Tejmal shall remain suspended till final disposal of the revision and he/she/they shall be released on bail subject to deposit of 50% of the cheque amount before the trial court, which shall be disbursed immediately to the respondent/complainant, provided he/she/they 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/her/their appearance in this court on 12.03.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the revision 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 appeal 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.

4. The petitioner(s) shall deposit 50% of the cheque amount before the trial court, which shall be disbursed immediately to the respondent/complainant on an application being filed. Any amount already deposited by the petitioner(s) shall be adjusted with the said 50% of the cheque amount.

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 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