Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raghunandan vs State on 20 July, 2017
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Suspension Of Sentence(Appeal) No. 395 / 2017
Raghunandan S/o Sh. Purshottam, By Caste Soni, Resident of
Moidyon-ki-khidak, Nathdwara, District- Rajsamand (Raj.)
(Presently, Lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R. Upadhyaya, PP.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order 20/07/2017 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on application for suspension of sentence.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the applicant appellant has remained in custody in excess of three years. However, without prejudice to his defence that the injury suffered by the injured Vijay Dave was not grievous in nature and thus, the offence if any would not travel beyond Section 324 IPC, the appellant is ready to offer compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- to the injured Vijay Dave under protest. However, Mr. Shah urges that possibility of the parties settling their dispute would become imminent with the generous gesture of compensation and thus, considering the bleak of possibility of hearing of the appeal in near future, the prayer of the appellant for suspending his sentences be considered sympathetically.
(2 of 3) [SOSA-395/2017] Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances as available on record and particularly the circumstance that the accused has a fair case for challenging his conviction under Section 326A IPC and as a reasonable offer of compensation has been made on his behalf and looking to the custodial period suffered by the appellant which is in excess of three years, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused appellant.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, vide judgment dated 04.03.2017 in Sessions Case No.10/2014 (CIS No.58/2014) against the appellant-applicant Raghunandan, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail upon his depositing a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in the trial Court by way of a demand draft prepared in the name of injured Vijay Dave and further 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 21.08.2017 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal 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.
(3 of 3) [SOSA-395/2017]
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.
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.
The demand draft upon being submitted by the appellant shall be disbursed to the injured Vijay Dave upon his placing on record complete identification documents. The offer of compensation shall not be treated to be prejudice to the defence of the accused in this appeal.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)J. Tikam/11