Surendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan

This second application seeking suspension of sentence is filed by the applicant-Surendra Kumar who has been convicted for the offences under Sections 307, 332, 353, 225 and 395 IPC vide judgment dated 4.7.17 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra in Sessions Case No.26/11 and sentenced to imprisonment as under:-

Under Section 307 IPC

to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

Under Section 332 IPC

To undergo three years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.

Under Section 353 IPC

To undergo two years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

Under Section 225 IPC

To undergo seven years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment.

Under Section 395 IPC

To undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment.

The first application seeking suspension of sentence No.699/2017 preferred by the applicant was dismissed by coordinate Bench vide order dated 14.02.2018 after due consideration on merits.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that coaccused-Leeladhar and Vikram Singh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.10.18. The observations made by the Court while enlarging the co-accused Leeladhar and Vikram Singh read as under:-

"Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the allegations on the face of it are false. The appellants have been enroped falsely. As per the allegation, the accused came to rescue Umed Singh who had been arrested by the Police. They were armed with weapons but no weapon seems to have been used and only Chilli Powder was used. Surprisingly, Umed Singh was got rescued and there was not even a single round of fire at the behest of the police. Umed Singh was also arrested on the same day. No injury has been caused to the police party in the entire incident.

The appeal is not likely to be heard in near future.

Having considered all the facts and circumstances of case, without making any observation on the merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the sentence of the applicants"

That apart, co-accused Dharmveer and Naresh Singh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 2.11.18 and 21.1.20 respectively..

It is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor that the case of the applicant herein is on better footing than co-accused Dharmveer who has already been enlarged on bail.

Having considered the submissions and taking into consideration totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we consider it appropriate to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to the applicant.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence preferred on behalf of applicant is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 4.7.17 in Sessions Case No.26/11 arising out of FIR No.318/11, P.S. Bhadra, Distt. Hanumangarh against the applicant Surendra Kumar S/o Mahendra Singh shall remain suspended till the final disposal of the aforesaid criminal appeal provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance in this Court on 07.4.2020 and subsequently before the trial court on the following conditions :-

1.That he will appear before the trial court in the month of January every year till the appeal is decided.

2.That if the appellant-applicant changes the place of residence, he will give the changed address in writing to the trial court, High Court as well as to his counsel in the High Court.

3.Similarly if sureties change their addresses, 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 appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to the Sessions Case in which the accused appellant was 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 does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.