Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Kaliya vs State Of Rajasthan … on 28 March, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:14527-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 2410/2025
Kaliya S/o Mena Lakhumbra, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of
Patharpadi, Police Station Kotra, District Udaipur, (Presently
Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)
----Applicant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
28/03/2026
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 01.03.2019 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Udaipur in Sessions
Case No.14/2016 as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine
302 IPC Life Imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-;
in default thereof to further
undergo three months’ S.I.
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. (430 BNSS,
2023) during the pendency of the appeal and for release on bail.
3. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-
applicant is that as the applicant is in custody for more than 10
years and there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in near
future, thus, in view of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court dated 15.09.2022 in Sonadhar v. The State of
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 12:52:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:32:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14527-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-2410/2025]
Chhattisgarh : SLP (Crl.) No.529/2021, the sentence of the
applicant be suspended and he be enlarged on bail.
4. Further submissions have been made that there are no
reasons and / or extenuating circumstances for denial of bail.
Submissions have also been made with reference to order dated
05.10.2021 in Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh :
SLP (Crl.) No.4633/2021, wherein also observations have been
made regarding grant of bail in the appeal at the High Court stage
except certain exceptions and that none of the exceptions are
applicable in the present case.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for
suspension of sentence. However, he has not denied that the
appellant-applicant has already undergone sentence of more than
10 years during trial and after sentence.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on
record.
7. Looking to the fact that criminal appeals pertaining to year
2008 are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing of
the present appeal in near future.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonadhar
(supra), while dealing with SMW (Crl.) No.4/2021 pertaining to
‘life convicts in jail whose appeals are pending before the High
Court’ inter-alia, issued the following directions :-
“We consider appropriate to issue directions in terms of
the aforesaid suggestions to the Patna High Court and
on a pari materia basis to even the other High Courts.
However, in order to carry out this exercise, the data
would have to be compiled of such of the persons who
have been in custody for more than 10 years and more
than 14 years, with these persons being considered for
grant of bail pending appeal, if there is no chance of(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 12:52:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:32:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14527-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-2410/2025]hearing of the appeal in the near future, unless there are
reasons for denial of bail. We can understand if any of
the parties is delaying the appeal itself but short of that,
we are of the view that all persons who have completed
10 years of sentence and appeal is not in proximity of
hearing with no extenuating circumstances should be
enlarged on bail.”
9. Prior to that in the case of Saudan Singh (supra) also
observations were made regarding grant of bail in cases where
convicts have undergone sentence for sufficiently long time and
appeals were pending at the High Court stage with exceptions
indicated therein.
10. In the present case as observed herein-before, the appellant-
applicant has already undergone sentence for more than 10 years
and apparently, there are no chances of hearing of the present
appeal in near future. Except for the fact that the appellant-
applicant was involved in offence leading to his conviction for life,
nothing has been brought on record by way of extenuating
circumstances for denial of suspension of sentence.
11. Consequently, following the order in the case of Sonadhar
(supra) and observations made in Saudan Singh (supra), without
making any observations on merits of the case and only on
account of the fact that more than 10 years’ sentence has already
been undergone by the appellant-applicant, we are inclined to
suspend the substantive sentence of the appellant-applicant,
namely, Kaliya S/o Mena Lakhumbra, during the pendency of
the appeal.
12. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. (430 BNSS, 2023) is
allowed and it is ordered that substantive sentence passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Udaipur, in Session Case
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 12:52:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:32:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14527-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-2410/2025]
No.14/2016 against the appellant-applicant, namely, Kaliya S/o
Mena Lakhumbra 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/- each with two
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial
Judge for his appearance in this court on 28.04.2026 and
whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the
conditions indicated below:
1. That he will appear before the trial court in the month
of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicant change the place of residence, he
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 they will
give in writing their changed address to the trial court.
13. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused-
applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also
be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall
not been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to
pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial court. In case the
said accused-applicant do not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
121-nitin/-
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 12:52:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:32:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)