High CourtsDivision Bench(2010) 07 RAJ CK 0077

Rameshwar and Another vs State

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 7 July 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satya Prakash Pathak, J · S.S. Kothari, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous (SOS) Application No. 558 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 390 words
1.

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State on the application for suspension of sentence.

2.

In the present matter, bail application for suspension moved on behalf of two accusedAppellants namely; Munesh & Mukesh have been rejected by this Court. The allegations against the accused-Appellants are in relation to ransom. Accused has been convicted u/s 364A IPC along with other offences under the IPC.

3.

The contention of learned Counsel is that relevant evidence is of PW-1, PW-9 abductee, PW- 14 & PW-17. According to learned Counsel, none of the above witnesses have stated any role of the accused-Appellant. It is also submitted that PW-9 Tulsi Ram has not stated any involvement of the accused in the crime. It is submitted that observations made at Page No. 33 of the judgment are based on no evidence and infact nobody has stated that there was any involvement of the accused. It is submitted that case of the accused-Appellant namely; Rameshwar may be on the footings of Munesh & Mukesh.

4.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions.

5.

After having carefully considering the submissions and on perusal of the statements of witnesses referred to above and also the statement of adductee PW-9 Tulsi Ram. In the facts & circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the fact that no specific role has been assigned to the accused-Appellant namely; Dinesh @ Pillu, therefore, without commenting on merits and demerits of the case, we are of the opinion that during pendency of appeal, the sentence awarded to the accused- Appellant No. 2 Dinesh @ Pillu should be suspended.

6.

Accordingly, application is allowed and the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the accused-Appellant No. 2 Dinesh @ Pillu S/o Sh. Dhansi Ram vide judgment dt. 27/09/2008 in Sessions Case No. 19/2007 shall remain suspended during pendency of appeal and he shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear before this Court on 09/08/2010 and as and when he is called upon to do so.

7.

Application for suspension of sentence of accused-Appellant No. 1 Rameshwar S/o Sh. Dhansi Ram is hereby rejected.