LexGAJRAJ YADAV versus RAJENDRA SINGH @ DEENA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 88
>-
A
GAJRAJ YADAV
v.
RAJENDRA SINGH @ DEENA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1695-96 of 2008)
B
OCTOBER 24, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
~
SHARMA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 389:
c
Suspension of sentence, pending appeal - Power of
appellate Court - Held: It is necessary for the appellate Court
to consider as to whether reasons existed justifying
suspension of sentence - In the instant case, High Court did
not keep in view the correct principle of law while ordering
D
suspension and granting bail to accusec/ - Hence, impugned
~'
(
,, .
~
order unsustainable ·and set aside - Penal Code, '1860 - S.
148, S. 325 rlw. s.149, S. 324 rlw s.149, S.323 rlw s.149, S.427,
S.455 r/w s.149 and S.302 rlw. s.149- Sentence.
E
Respondents, accused persons, were convicted by
trial Court for offences punishable under Sections ·148,
325 read with Section 149, 324 read with Section 149,
Section 323 read with Section 149, 427, 455 and 302 read
with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Pending
>--
appeals before the High Court, they had filed an
F
application for suspension of sentence in terms of s.389
Cr.P.C. High Court accepted the prayer and directed
suspension of sentence subject to furnishing the bond
with sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Hence
r
•
the pre~ent appeals.
G
Allowing the appeals, the Court
t-
HELD: 1.1. One of the essential ingredients of
Section 389 is the requirement for the appellate Court to
H
record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of
88
GAJRAJ YADAV v. RAJENDRA SINGH@ DEENA & ORS. 89
execution of the sentence or order appealed against. If A
accused is in confinement, the said court can direct that
he be released on bail, or on his own bond. The
requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly
indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the
relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of
B
sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a
matter of routine. [Para 10] [93-G-H; 94-A]
1.2. The mere fact that during the period when the
accused persons were on bail during trial there was no
misuse of liberties, does not per se warrant suspension
C
of execution of sentence and grant of bail. What r13ally
was necessary to be considered by the High Court is
whether reasons existed to suspend the execution of
sentence and thereafter grant bail. The High Court does
not seem to have kept the correct principle in view. [Para
D
11] [94-B-C]
Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and Ors., [2002] 9 SCC 364;
Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and Anr., [2002] 9
SCC 366; Kishori Lal v. Rupa and Ors., [2004] 7 SCC 638;
E
Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, [2005] 5 SCC
281 and Gomti v. Thakurdas and Ors., [2007) 11 SCC 160,
relied on.
2. The order directing suspension of sentence and
grant of bail is unsustainable and is set aside. [Para 15]
F
[95-8)
Case Law Reference :
c20021 9 sec 364
c20021 9 sec 366
[2004J 1 sec 638
[2005J 5 sec 2a1
c20011 11 sec 160
relied on
relied on
relied on
relied on
relied on
Para 12
Para 12
Para 13
Para 13
Para 13
G
H
90
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 15 S.C.R.
)-
A
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
I-
Nos. 1695-1696 of 2008 .
. . From the final Order dated.31.7.2007 ofthe High Court of
· Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in D.S. Crl. Appeal
B Nos. 1420 and 1431 of 2007.
Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Archana Tiwari and
Pratibha Jain for the Appellant.
Jitendra Mohan Sharma for the Respondents.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a
D Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court directi£1g
;
{
suspension of sentence awarded to the respondents. It was
directed that such suspension was to take effect on each one
of them by furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- together
with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the
E satisfaction of the trial Court for the appearance before the High
Court and on dates of hearing unless otherwise directed. The
order was to operate in respect of the respondents who are the
appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.1420 and 1431 of 2007
pending before the Rajasthan High Court. It is to be noted that
~·
F 51 persons were put on trial and 18 were convicted. Along with
the appeals, the respondents filed application for suspExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.