Shafiq Ahmed Son Of Shri Mumtaz Khan vs State Of Rajasthan … on 23 March, 2026

    0
    36
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur

    Shafiq Ahmed Son Of Shri Mumtaz Khan vs State Of Rajasthan … on 23 March, 2026

    [2026:RJ-JP:11968-DB]
    
            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                        BENCH AT JAIPUR
    
     D.B. Criminal Misc. Application (For Suspension Of Sentence) No.
                                         141/2026
    
                                               In
    
                       D.B. Criminal Appeal No.231/2025
    
    1.       Shafiq Ahmed S/o Shri Mumtaz Khan, Aged About 30
             Years, Resident Of village Miyan-Ki-Dhani, Police Station,
             Ranoli, District Sikar, (Raj.).
    2.       Sharif Ahmed S/o Shri Mumtaz Khan, Aged About 37
             Years, Resident Of village Miyan-Ki-Dhani, Police Station,
             Ranoli, District Sikar, (Raj.).
             (Both Applicants are Presently Lodged In Central Jail At
             Bikaner)
                                                               ----Accused-Appellants
                                           Versus
    State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
    

    —-Respondent

    For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with
    Mr. T.C. Sharma
    For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, P.P.
    For Complainant(s) Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv. assisted by
    Mr. Amar Kumar

    SPONSORED

    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

    Judgment / Order

    23/03/2026

    This suspension of sentence application under Section 430 of

    the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by

    the accused-applicants (for brevity, “the applicants”) alongwith the

    appeal. The applicants have been convicted and sentenced by the

    learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Sikar (for short, ‘the

    learned trial Court’) vide judgment dated 29.04.2025 passed in

    (Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 04:43:59 PM)
    (Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 08:28:26 PM)
    [2026:RJ-JP:11968-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-141/2026]

    Sessions Case No.141/2015 (BT No.16/2016) (CIS No.208/2015)

    as under:-

    1. Under Section 148 IPC: One year’s simple imprisonment and

    fine of ₹1,000/- each; in default whereof, seven days’ additional

    simple imprisonment.

    2. Under Section 341 IPC: One month’s simple imprisonment

    and fine of ₹500/- each; in default whereof, five days’ additional

    simple imprisonment.

    3. Under Section 323/149 IPC: Six months’ simple

    imprisonment and fine of ₹1,000/- each; in default whereof, seven

    days’ additional simple imprisonment.

    4. Under Section 325/149 IPC: Four years’ simple

    imprisonment and fine of ₹5,000/- each; in default whereof, one

    month’s additional simple imprisonment.

    5. Under Section 302/149 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of

    ₹20,000/- each; in default whereof, six months’ additional simple

    imprisonment.

    All the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

    Learned counsel for the applicants contends that they have

    falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that they have

    convicted inter alia under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section

    149 IPC and substantive sentence of similarly situated co-accused

    persons namely Smt. Sayra Bano @ Guddi, Subhash Chand,

    Mohammad Hanif @ Idu and Mumtaz Khan have already been

    suspended by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

    09.01.2026 and prays for suspension of substantive sentence

    awarded to them vide judgment impugned dated 29.04.2025

    during pendency of the appeal.

    (Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 04:43:59 PM)
    (Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 08:28:26 PM)
    [2026:RJ-JP:11968-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-141/2026]

    Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor though, opposed the

    prayer but, could not dispute that the case of the applicants is not

    distinguishable from the case of the co-accused who have already

    been extended benefit of suspension of sentence.

    Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant opposing the

    prayer, stated that the weapon of offence has been recovered on

    the disclosure statement made by the applicant-Shafiq Ahmed and

    therefore, he is disentitled for benefit of suspension of sentence.

    Heard. Considered.

    A perusal of the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by a

    coordinate Bench of this Court whereby, the suspension of

    sentence applications filed by the co-accused were allowed and

    the material on record reflects that the case of the applicants is

    not distinguishable from the case of the co-accused who have

    already been extended benefit of suspension of sentence by this

    Court. In view thereof, we deem it just and proper to allow the

    application for suspension of sentence filed by the applicants.

    Accordingly, the suspension of sentence application is

    allowed. Substantive sentences awarded to the applicants by the

    learned trial Court vide judgment dated 29.04.2025 shall remain

    suspended during pendency of the appeal and the applicants-1.

    Shafiq Ahmed S/o Shri Mumtaz Khan & 2. Sharif Ahmed

    S/o Shri Mumtaz Khan shall be released on bail provided each

    of them furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial

    Court to the effect that they shall appear before this Court on or

    before 23.04.2026 and as and when called upon to do so till

    disposal of the appeal and subject to the following conditions:-

    (Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 04:43:59 PM)
    (Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 08:28:26 PM)
    [2026:RJ-JP:11968-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-141/2026]

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

    2. That if the applicants change the place
    of residence, they will give in writing their
    changed address(es) to the learned trial Court as
    well as to their learned counsel in the High Court
    who shall, in turn, inform this Court.

    3. Similarly, if the sureties change their
    address(es), they will give in writing their
    changed address to the learned trial Court.

    The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of

    the accused-applicants in a separate file(s). Such file(s) be

    registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which

    the accused-applicants were tried and convicted. A copy of this

    order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal

    Misc. file(s) shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose

    relating to pendency and disposal of the case in the learned trial

    Court. In case, the said accused-applicants do not appear before

    the learned trial Court, the learned trial Judge shall report the

    matter to the High Court for cancellation of benefit extended by

    this order.

    (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

    Manish/15

    (Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 04:43:59 PM)
    (Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 08:28:26 PM)

    Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here