[2026:RJ-JD:14527-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)

No. 2410/2025 Kaliya S/o Mena Lakhumbra, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Patharpadi, Police Station Kotra, District Udaipur, (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)

----Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Singh Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

Order

28/03/2026

1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 01.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.14/2016 as under:-

2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. (430 BNSS, 2023) during the pendency of the appeal and for release on bail.

3. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant- applicant is that as the applicant is in custody for more than 10 years and there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in near future, thus, in view of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 15.09.2022 in Sonadhar v. The State of Chhattisgarh : SLP (Crl.) No.529/2021, the sentence of the applicant be suspended and he be enlarged on bail.

4. Further submissions have been made that there are no reasons and / or extenuating circumstances for denial of bail. Submissions have also been made with reference to order dated 05.10.2021 in Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh : SLP (Crl.) No.4633/2021, wherein also observations have been made regarding grant of bail in the appeal at the High Court stage except certain exceptions and that none of the exceptions are applicable in the present case.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for suspension of sentence. However, he has not denied that the appellant-applicant has already undergone sentence of more than

10 years during trial and after sentence.

6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. Looking to the fact that criminal appeals pertaining to year 2008 are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing of the present appeal in near future.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonadhar (supra), while dealing with SMW (Crl.) No.4/2021 pertaining to ‘life convicts in jail whose appeals are pending before the High Court’ inter-alia, issued the following directions :-

“We consider appropriate to issue directions in terms of the aforesaid suggestions to the Patna High Court and on a pari materia basis to even the other High Courts. However, in order to carry out this exercise, the data would have to be compiled of such of the persons who have been in custody for more than 10 years and more than 14 years, with these persons being considered for grant of bail pending appeal, if there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in the near future, unless there are reasons for denial of bail. We can understand if any of the parties is delaying the appeal itself but short of that, we are of the view that all persons who have completed 10 years of sentence and appeal is not in proximity of hearing with no extenuating circumstances should be enlarged on bail.”

9. Prior to that in the case of Saudan Singh (supra) also observations were made regarding grant of bail in cases where convicts have undergone sentence for sufficiently long time and appeals were pending at the High Court stage with exceptions indicated therein.

10. In the present case as observed herein-before, the appellant- applicant has already undergone sentence for more than 10 years and apparently, there are no chances of hearing of the present appeal in near future. Except for the