HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application

No.652/2023

In

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.109/2021

Vikram Son Of Shri Chain Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Resident

Of Village Arniya, P.S. Unhel, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

(Appellant Presently Confined In Central Jail, Tonk)

----Applicant

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

----Respondent

Connected With

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application

No.350/2023

In

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.109/2021

1. Manohar Son Of Shri Chandiya alias Chandimal, Resident of

Village Arniya, P.S. Unhel, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

2. Shri Narayan Son Of Shri Bahadur alias Madariya, Resident

of Village Arniya, P.S. Unhel, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

3. Sanwala Son of Shri Amar Singh, Resident of Village Arniya,

P.S. Unhel, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

(Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)

----Applicants

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

----Respondent

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application

No.653/2023

In

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.109/2021

Gordhan Son Of Shri Hadmat, aged about 32 years, Resident of

Village Arniya, P.S. Unhel, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

(2 of 3)

[SOSA-652/2023]

(Appellant Presently Confined In Central Jail, Tonk)

----Applicant

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Prateek Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Ajay Singh Yaduvanshi, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Imran Khan, Dy. G.A.

Mr. Manoj Ojla, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

18/07/2023

1.

Accused-applicants have preferred these applications for

suspension of sentence.

2.

Heard on applications for suspension of sentence.

3.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that

initially a charge-sheet was filed against 5 persons; matter was

kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. against 7 persons and

in the initial charge-sheet, accused were not arrayed. It is also

contended that sentence of one of the co-accused has been

suspended by the High Court; all the accused except Vikram were

on bail during trial; there is no recovery of any weapon of offence

from the present accused-applicants; there is no identification of

the articles which were recovered at their instance and disposal of

appeal is bound to take time.

4.

Learned Deputy Government Advocate and learned counsel

for the complainant have opposed the applications for suspension

of sentence.

(3 of 3)

[SOSA-652/2023]

5.

It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that

empty shells were recovered from the spot; the accused were

identified in the Test Identification Parade and articles were

recovered at their instance.

6.

We have considered the contentions.

7.

Taking note of the fact that initially as per the complaint,

there were 5 to 6 persons, who committed the offence; Police has

also submitted charge-sheet only against 5 persons, subsequently

after lapse of 2 years, 7 other persons were arrayed as accused in

this case and also taking note of the fact that no weapon of

offence was recovered from any of the present accused-applicants

and except Vikram, all the accused were on bail during trial and

Vikram has also remained in custody for more than 9 years.

Sentence of the co-accused Kalu was suspended by the Apex

Court and sentence of the co-accused Arjun was also suspended

by this Court, we deem it proper to allow the applications for

suspension of sentence.

8.

Accordingly, the applications for suspension of

sentence are allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to

accused-applicants in Sessions Case No.5/2018 (31/2012) (CIS

No.5/2018) shall remain suspended if each of them furnishes a

personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/-

each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court to the effect that

each of them shall appear before this Court as and when called

upon to do so.

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

Keshav/21