Narendra Popatlal Prajapati & Others vs State Of Gujarat

R. T. Vachhani, J

By way of these captioned revision applications under Section 438 and 442 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS, 2023), the petitioners - accused seek to challenge the common judgment and order dated 24/09/2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kachch-Bhuj, in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2025 confirming the judgment and order dated 19/04/2025 passed by the learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bhuj-Kachch in Criminal Case No. 420 of 2012, whereby learned Magistrate was pleased to convict the present petitioners - accused under section 409 read with 120(B) of IPC Act for five years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo six months RI, as also convicted the present petitioners - accused under section 217 of IPC Act, for three months of simple imprisonment.

Heard learned Advocate Mr.Zubin Bharda, with Mr.Jucky Lucky Chan, learned advocate for the petitioner-accused of CR.RA No.1844 of 2025; learned advocate Mr Vishal Anandjiwala for the petitioner -accused of CR.RA No.1861 of 2025 and learned advocate Mr R J Goswami for the petitioner - accused of CR.RA No.1890 of 2025; Mr Hardik Dave learned Public Prosecutor with Mr.H K Patel, learned APP for the Respondent-State. The issued raised in the captioned revision application deserves consideration and requires judiciously appreciated.

Hence, RULE.

ORDER IN CR.MA NO.1 OF 2025 IN CR.RA NO.1844 OF 2025; CR.MA NO.2 OF 2025 IN CR.RA NO.1861 OF 2025 & CR.MA NO.2 OF 2025 IN CR.RA NO.1890 OF 2025:

The captioned applications are filed by the petitioners - accused to suspend the sentence imposed upon the petitioners - accused vide judgment and order dated 19/04/2025 passed by the learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bhuj-Kachch in Criminal Case No. 420 of 2012, whereby learned Magistrate was pleased to convict the present petitioners - accused under section 409 read with 120(B) of IPC Act for five years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo six months RI, as also convicted the present petitioners - accused under section 217 of IPC Act, for three months of simple imprisonment.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that petitioners - accused, after pronouncement of the judgment and order by the learned first appellate Court confirming the conviction and sentence moved two different applications before the learned first appellate Court below Exhibit-33 in CR.A No.70 of 2025 sought to grant stay against the order of serving the sentence for a period of fifteen days. The learned first appellate Court after hearing the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties at length has allowed the application seeking stay against the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court for a period of 15 days' with a view to obtain the appropriate orders from the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and further directed to produce the copy thereof before the learned first appellate Court on the petitioners - accused executing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/-each.

Thereafter, when the captioned revision applications have come up for hearing, learned advocates appearing for the petitioners - accused have submitted that since the petitioners - accused intended to surrender before the jail authority, they may be given some time to do so and hearing was differed. Accordingly, the petitioners - accused have surrendered before the learned first appellate Court and produced on record the surrender certificate / order passed by the learned first appellate Court whereby the petitioners - accused have been sent to jail for serving of the sentence as awarded.

Thus, in the above background, the petitioners - accused has moved the captioned applications and sought for the relief as stated in the preceding paragraphs.

Heard learned Advocate Mr.Zubin Bharda, with Mr.Jucky Lucky Chan, learned advocate for the petitioner-accused of CR.RA No.1844 of 2025; learned advocate Mr Vishal Anandjiwala for the petitioner -accused of CR.RA No.1861 of 2025 and learned advocate Mr R J Goswami for the petitioner - accused of CR.RA No.1890 of 2025; Mr Hardik Dave learned Public Prosecutor with Mr.H K Patel, learned APP for the Respondent-State.

Learned advocates appearing for the respective petitioners -accused have submitted that the petitioners - accused have surrendered before the learned first appellate Court and they have been sent to jail for serving of the sentence. It is further sought to be contended that petitioners - accused are the Government servants and they have discharged their duties as per the law and therefore, it cannot be said that they have committed any such offence; however the learned Courts have failed to consider this aspect and recorded the conviction. It is further submitted that though the concurrent findings are recorded by the learned Courts recording conviction; but considering the pendency and there are no likelihood of hearing the main revision petitions in near future and therefore, considering the background of the petitioners - accused being Government servants, they will not run away from hearing the revision petitions, they may be enlarged on bail while suspending the sentence imposed upon them. It is further submitted that all the petitioners -accused have paid the amount of fine as directed by the learned trial Court. Thus, it is submitted to allow the captioned applications seeking suspension of sentence pending the hearing of the revision applications.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Dave appearing with Mr.Patel, learned APP while opposing the above submissions would submit that since the petitioner - accused has been convicted and sentence by the trial Court after considering the evidence produced and examined by the learned trial Court which came to be confirmed by the learned first appellate Court, this Court may not interfere with the said finding and to suspend the order of sentence. It is further submitted that since there are concurrent findings of the learned Courts, this Court may not suspend the sentence imposed upon the petitioners - accused.

At the outset, it deserves to the noted that the petitioners - accused have surrendered before the authority concerned and they have been sent to the jail for serving of the sentence as awarded. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant - accused, perusing the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below, it appears that petitioners-accused are sentenced for a fixed period of five years and the Revision Application against such conviction is admitted by this Court, as also there is no likelihood of hearing the said revision applications in near future and the amount of fine has been paid by the petitioners - accused as submitted by learned advocates appearing for the respective petitioners, the captioned applications for suspension of sentence deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the captioned applications seeking suspension of sentence are allowed and the sentence imposed upon the petitioners -accused by the learned trial Court as confirmed by the learned first appellate Court, is hereby suspended till final disposal of the present revision application. The petitioners - accused are ordered to be released on bail, if they are not required in any other offence, on the following terms and conditions:-

(i) The petitioners - accused shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with the surety of the like amount before the learned trial Court.

(ii) Not to misuse the liberty granted to them by this Court and shall not involve himself in any other offence;

(iii) The petitioners - accused shall furnish the correct and permanent address with the documentary evidence, as also the mobile number before the learned trial Court and shall also intimate the Court concerned in the event of change of any address.

(iv) Not leave India without prior permission of this Court.

Direct service is permitted.