SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dharampal vs State on 11 January, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Suspension Of Sentence(Appeal) No. 1244/2018

1. Dharampal S/o Shri Munshi Ram, Aged About 34 Years,
B/c Meghwal, R/o Village Jogiwali, P.s. Bhirani, Teh.
Bhadra, Distt. Hanumangarh (Presently Lodged In Central
Jail, Bikaner)

2. Subhash S/o Sh. Munshi Ram, Aged About 37 Years, B/c
Meghwal, R/o Village Jogiwali, P.s. Bhirani, Teh. Bhadra,
Distt. Hanumangarh (Presently Lodged In Central Jail,
Bikaner)

—-Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP

—-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. JPS Choudhary, PP.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

11/01/2019

Learned Public Prosecutor has chosen not to file reply to this

application for suspension of sentences and proposes to argue the

matter orally.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

The appellant applicants herein stand convicted for the

offences under Section 498A and 304B IPC vide judgment dated

17.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.24/2013 (CIS

No.77/2014).

(2 of 4) [SOSA-1244/2018]

Learned counsel Shri Shah, at the outset, does not press the

application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the

accused appellant Dharam Pal being the husband of the deceased

Smt. Darshana. However, regarding the co-applicant Subhash, his

contention is that Subhash was living separately from Dharam Pal

since long and that there was no occasion for Subhash and his

wife Smt. Santosh to have harassed and humiliated the deceased

on account of demand of dowry. He further urged that appellant

applicant Subhash is in custody for the last more than five years

and hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. He thus

craves acceptance of application for suspension of sentences to

the extent of the applicant appellant Subhash and urges that he

deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the appeal.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has

vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by

the defence counsel. He submits that deceased Smt. Darshana

was married to Dharam Pal just about two and half years before

her unnatural death in the matrimonial home. Right from the date

of her marriage with Dharam Pal, she was being harassed and

humiliated on account of demand of dowry by Dharam Pal

(husband), Subhash (Jeth), Smt. Santosh (Jethani) and Munshi

Ram (father-in-law). They were demanding a motorcycle and

rupees one lac cash by way of dowry. He thus urges that as there

are common and grave allegations of the prosecution witnesses

against all the accused, the applicant Subhash too does not

deserve indulgence of bail.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and

have gone through the material available on record.

(3 of 4) [SOSA-1244/2018]

There is ample material available on the record so as to

satisfy the Court that the applicant appellant Subhash was living

separately with his wife Smt. Santosh and that Dharam Pal, the

husband, had taken up a separate residence. The prosecution case

regard the accused persons having murdered Smt. Darshana and

her child has been discarded by the trial court and all the accused

were acquitted from the charges under Section 302/34 IPC. Thus,

the applicant Subhash has strong case so as to assail his

conviction for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and

his case is definitely distinguishable from that of the accused

Dharam Pal. Smt. Santosh wife of the applicant Subhash has been

enlarged on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order

dated 25.01.2017.

In this background and having regard to the entirety of facts

and circumstances as emerging from record, we are inclined to

accept this application for suspension of sentences to the extent of

appellant applicant No.2 Subhash. So far as the appellant

applicant No.1 Dharam Pal is concerned, the application for

suspension of sentence is dismissed as not pressed.

Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of

sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed in part and it

is ordered that the sentences passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, vide judgment dated

17.11.2016 in Sessions Case No.24/2013 (CIS No.77/2014)

against the appellant-applicant No.2 Subhash S/o Shri Munshi

Ram, 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.50,000/- with two sureties of

Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for
(4 of 4) [SOSA-1244/2018]

his appearance in this court on 11.02.2019 and whenever ordered

to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated

below:-

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

12-Tikam/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2019 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh