Anil And Ors vs State of Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel representing the applicants appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel representing the complainant.

Perused the impugned judgment and the material available on record.

The appellants applicants herein stand convicted for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC vide judgment dated

03.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana, District Nagaur in Sessions Case No.13/2002 (34/2002) (C.I.S. No.35/2014).

Learned defence counsel Shri R.K. Charan and Shri Rakesh Arora have submitted an explanation regarding the antecedents of the appellants herein.

Shri Charan submits that so far as the appellant-applicant Anil is concerned, 11 cases were registered against him after his release on bail in the

present case. But only one of them involves a serious offence i.e. Section 307 IPC. In that case being FIR No.17/2015 registered at Police Station

Jaswantgarh, applicant Anil has been released on bail with a prima-facie expression of opinion that he has been falsely implicated and was not even

present at the spot.

Shri Rakesh Arora, Advocate representing the applicant Surendra @ Surya urges that after release of the accused on bail in the present case, 7 other

cases were registered against him but, only one of them involves a grave offence i.e. under Section 308 IPC and that too has been decided way back

in the year 2010.

On merits, learned defence counsel urge that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The star prosecution witness Maheep Kumar (PW-8)

though alleged in his first statement recorded on 23.05.2006 that the appellants herein, caught hold of the deceased Khairaj and then, the principal

accused Anandpal Singh stabbed him but when the witness was examined afresh after arrest of the absconding accused Anandpal Singh, he totally

resiled from his earlier version and was declared hostile. They thus urge that there is no tangible material whatsoever on the record of the case so as

to connect the applicants-appellants with the alleged offence of murdering the deceased Khairaj. The appellants were on bail during trial and the

hearing of the appeal is likely to take time. They thus urge that the sentences awarded to the applicants-appellants deserve to be suspended during

pendency of the appeal.

On the other hand, Shri Farzand Ali, learned AAG-cum-GA assisted by Shri R.R. Chhaparwal, PP and Shri G.R. Punia, learned Sr. Advocate assisted

by Shri Rajendra Prasad, Advocate representing the complainant, have vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the

appellants’ counsel. Nonetheless, they too are not in a position to dispute the fact that the star prosecution witness Maheep Kumar (PW-8), was

examined twice at the trial. In his first version, he had attributed the stab wounds caused to the deceased Khairaj to the accused Anandpal Singh and

alleged that the appellants caught hold of him but when examined afresh after arrest of the absconding accused Anandpal Singh, the witness, turned

hostile and exonerated all the accused. The applicants-appellants were on bail during trial. Hearing of the appeal is bleak in near future.

In this background, we are of the view that the applicantsappellants have available to them strong grounds so as to assail their conviction and thus, it is

considered just and proper to suspend the sentences awarded to the appellants, during pendency of the appeal.

Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed

by the Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana, District Nagaur, vide judgment dated 03.09.2019 in Sessions Case No.13/2002 (34/2002) (C.I.S.

No.35/2014) against the appellants-applicants (1) Anil and (2) Surendra @ Surya, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and

they shall be released on bail, provided each of them 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 28.03.2019 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on

the conditions indicated below:-

That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

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.

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.