Teju @ Tejiya vs State, Through Pp

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentences.

Learned counsel Mr. R.K. Charan urges that the entire prosecution case is based on the evidence of PW-3 Rakesh and the allegation that the voter identity card of the deceased was recovered at the instance of accused appellant. He urges that when Rakesh was examined on oath during the course of trial, he did not identify any of the accused as the assailants. Thus, as per Mr. Charan, there is no substantive evidence regarding identification of the accused. Mr. Charan further submits that the recovery of the voter identity card was effected after almost two and half months of the incident and there is no possibility that the accused would keep the worthless voter identity card with him so that the same could be recovered and used later in evidence against him. He thus urges that the accused-appellant, who is in custody since June 2015 deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of this appeal.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that Rakesh, the star prosecution eye witness when examined as PW-3, did not identify any of the accused as assailants. Whether or not, the recovery of the voter card would be considered to be credible shall have to be deliberated upon at the time when the appeal is finally decided.

Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at Bar and the fact that the accused-appellant is in custody for the last four and half 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 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara vide judgment dated 26.9.2019 in Sessions Case No.8/2015 against the appellant-applicant Teju @ Tejiya S/o Hajari Bagariya, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 05.03.2020 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.