[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Imtiyaz Ahmed vs State Of Rajasthan … on 15 July, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:30857-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1743/2024
Imtiyaz Ahmed S/o Riyaz Ahmed, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Holi
Chowk, Prithviganj,p.s Kotwali Banswara. Dist Banswara.
(At Present Lodged At Central Jail Udaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1741/2024
Siraj Ahmed S/o Riyaz Ahmed, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Holi
Chowk, Prithviganj Banswara. (At Present Lodged At Central Jail
Udaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1742/2024
Khan Bahadur S/o Meer Mohd., Aged About 51 Years, R/o Holi
Chowk, Prithviganj Banswara. (At Present Lodged At Central Jail
Udaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 115/2025
Khan Bahadur S/o Meer Mohammad, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Holi Chowk, Prithviganj, Dist Banswara. (At Present Lodged In
Central Jai Udaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 10:41:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30857-DB] (2 of 7) [SOSA-1743/2024]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Charan.
Mr. Shaitan Singh Badguzer.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP.
Mr. Rahul Rajpurohit, with
Mr. Sarthak Asopa.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
15/07/2025
1. The appellants have preferred these applications for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. (430 B.N.S.S.)
in relation to their conviction pursuant to the judgment dated
07.11.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast
Track), Banswara in Sessions Case No.43/2006.
2. It is noted by this Court that earlier the sentences of the
appellants were initially suspended in the year 2007-08 by this
Court. However, subsequently, due to the appellants’ conduct and
antecedents, particularly, those occurring after the suspension of
sentence, this Court cancelled the suspension of sentence vide
order dated 07.01.2020 passed in D.B. Criminal Misc. Application
Nos.233/2019, 234/2019 & 235/2019, which is reproduced
hereunder:
“1. These three miscellaneous applications have been filed
by applicant Mr. Fakir Mohammed seeking cancellation of
bail granted to the following four accused :
(i) Riyaz Ahmed (D.B. Criminal Misc. Application for
cancellation of Suspension of Sentence No.233/2019)
(ii) Siraj Ahmed (D.B. Criminal Misc. Application for
cancellation of Suspension of Sentence No.234/2019)
(iii) Khan Bahadur (D.B. Criminal Misc. Application for
cancellation of Suspension of Sentence No.234/2019)(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 10:41:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30857-DB] (3 of 7) [SOSA-1743/2024]
(iv) Imtiyaz Ahmed (D.B. Criminal Misc. Application for
cancellation of Suspension of Sentence No.235/2019).
2. The respondent accused were convicted by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Banswara
vide judgment dated 07.11.2006 for the following offences
and were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment with
the maximum being the life imprisonment for the charge
under Section 302 or 302/34 IPC :
(i) Riyaz Ahmed : Sections 302/34 and 324/34 IPC
(ii) Siraj Ahmed : Sections 302/34 and 324 IPC
(iii) Khan Bahadur : Sections 302/34 and 324/34 IPC
(iv) Imtiyaz : Sections 302 and 324 IPC
3. The applicant-complainant has moved these applications
for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents accused
on the ground that they have indulged in numerous
criminal activities during the pendency of this appeal and
they have flouted the conditions of the bail orders whereby
their sentences were suspended by this court.
4. Mr. Sikandar Khan, learned counsel representing the
applicant-complainant, vehemently and fervently urged
that if a person convicted for the serious charge of murder
re indulges in criminal activities repeatedly even after being
released on bail, then this court can exercise powers under
Section 439 (2) CrPC so as to cancel the bail granted to
such person/persons. He contends that two cases involving
the offence under Section 302 IPC have been registered
against the accused. In addition thereto, various other
cases for serious offences including the offence under
Section 307 IPC have also been registered against them
while they were enjoying freedom by effect of the orders of
suspension of sentences passed by this court in the instant
appeal. He, thus, urged that the accused have blatantly
misused the liberty so granted to them by this court and
hence, they do not deserve to remain on bail during the
pendency of this appeal.
5. Mr. Shaitan Singh Badgujar, learned counsel
representing the respondents, is not in a position to dispute
the fact that a large number of criminal cases, including
two for the offences under Section 302 IPC, have been
registered against the respondents accused during
pendency of the instant appeal, but his contention was that
merely because some criminal cases have been registered
against the accused during this interregnum, that by itself
cannot be a ground so as to recall or cancel the order of
suspension of sentences passed in their favour by this court
after conscious application of mind. He contended that it
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 10:41:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30857-DB] (4 of 7) [SOSA-1743/2024]
was not stipulated in the orders of suspension of sentences
that the accused would not re-indulge in any other criminal
case during the pendency of the appeal or that in case,
they are found so involved, then it would tantamount to
breach of the conditions of the bail order. He further
submitted that even in the fresh cases, which have been
registered against the accused during this period, they
have been enlarged on bail by the trial court as well as by
this court on different occasions. He further submitted that
as a matter of fact, the complainants of the subsequent
cases, which were lodged against the accused for oblique
motives, have used the applicant-complainant Mr. Fakir
Mohammed as a tool to get these cancellation applications
filed because the accused were granted bail by this court in
the subsequent cases finding that there was no material
available on record to connect them with the crime. He,
thus, implored the court to reject the applications for
cancellation of bail.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the
material available on record.
7. The fact that the accused were found involved in large
number of criminal cases, including two for the charge
under Section 302 IPC, was not disputed by the learned
counsel Mr. Badgujar during the course of arguments.
Otherwise also, this allegation is duly corroborated by the
documents placed on record by the applicant-complainant
in support of the applications for cancellation of bail. In
addition to the two cases under Section 302 IPC, list of
various other cases registered against the accused from the
year 2013 onwards has been filed on record. Two of these
cases involve the offences under Sections 307 IPC and
3/25 of the Arms Act and charge-sheets have been filed
against the accused in all these cases after investigation.
8. It is, therefore, manifest that the accused have
continuously indulged in nefarious criminal activities
involving grave and serious offences after being released
on bail by this court in the appeal against conviction,
involving the offence under Section 302 IPC.
9. True it is, that in the orders of suspension of sentences
passed by this court, there is no such stipulation that the
accused will not re-indulge in any other offence while being
on bail, but it is our firm opinion that this condition is
inherently entrenched in every bail order, whereby an
accused is set at liberty and it is the requirement of law as
well as that of a civilized society that a person, who is
granted bail by a court of law after being convicted for a
serious charge like 302 IPC should conduct himself in a
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 10:41:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30857-DB] (5 of 7) [SOSA-1743/2024]
criminal activities. peaceful manner and should refrain from
re-indulging in Repeated indulgence of the accused person/
persons in criminal activities would invariably lead to an
inference that he/they are misusing the liberty of bail
granted by the court. The contention of Mr. Badgujar that
the accused have been granted bail in the subsequent
criminal cases registered against them does not convince
us even for a moment that any advantage can be given to
the accused on this ground while considering these
cancellation applications. We have been taken through a
few of the bail orders, but in not even one of them, the fact
of the accused having been convicted in the present case
involving the offence under Section 302 IPC was
considered.
10. The contention of Mr. Badgujar that the complainants of
the subsequent criminal cases have got these applications
filed for cancellation of bail by manipulating Mr. Fakir
Mohammed is far-fetched and unconvincing. There is no
material on record of the case, by which we can be
satisfied that the complainant has been obliquely motivated
in this manner.
11. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of
the firm opinion that having been found involved in
numerous repeated criminal activities relating to serious
offences, viz. Sections 302, 307 etc., the accused have
misused the liberty of bail granted to them by this court
vide orders dated liberty any further. 13.02.2007 (D.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail (SOS) Application No.123/2007 – Riyaz
Ahmed), 01.03.2007 (D.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (SOS)
Application No.303/2007 – Siraj Ahmed), 23.09.2008, (D.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail (SOS) Application No.918/2008 – Khan
Bahadur) and 05.03.2010 (D.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (SOS)
Application No.310/2010 – Imtiyaz) respectively, thus, they
cannot be allowed to enjoy this liberty any further.
12. Accordingly, these three miscellaneous applications for
cancellation of suspension of sentences is allowed. The
respective bail (suspension of sentence) orders passed in
favour of the respondents-accused are recalled. The
respondents accused namely, (i) Riyaz Ahmed (D.B.
Criminal Misc. Application for cancellation of Suspension of
Sentence No.233/2019), (ii) Siraj Ahmed (D.B. Criminal
Misc. Application for cancellation of Suspension of Sentence
No.234/2019), (iii) Khan Bahadur (D.B. Criminal Misc.
Application for cancellation of Suspension of Sentence
No.234/2019) and (iv) Imtiyaz Ahmed (D.B. Criminal Misc.
Application for cancellation of Suspension of Sentence
No.235/2019) shall surrender before the trial court within a
period of thirty days from today, failing which, their bail
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 10:41:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30857-DB] (6 of 7) [SOSA-1743/2024]
bonds shall be forfeited and the trial court as well as the
Superintendent of Police Banswara shall take immediate
steps to re-arrest the accused. A copy of this order
alongwith the copies of the bail bonds furnished by the
accused shall be forwarded to the trial court forthwith.
3. Thereafter, the appellants again preferred applications for
suspension of sentence bearing D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of
Sentence Application (Appeal) Nos.628/2023 & 843/2023, which
were dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2023, the order whereof
reads as under:
“1. These applications have been filed by the applicants
seeking suspension of sentence in relation to their
conviction pursuant to the judgment dated 07.11.2006
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track),
Banswara.
2. The applicants were granted suspension of sentence by
orders dated 01.03.2007 & 23.09.2008 respectively by this
Court. The bail granted by the said orders came to be
cancelled on 28.02.2020, against which, the applicants
approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein Special
Leave Petitions were withdrawn and directions were given
for expeditious disposal of the pending appeals.
3. In view of the above facts situation, no case is made out
for grant of suspension of sentence. The applications are
dismissed.
4. List the appeals for hearing on 05.09.2023.”
4. This Court has perused the reply filed by the State, which
indicates that there are more than 28 criminal antecedents against
the appellants, out of which, 13 cases have been registered after
2008, when the sentences of the appellants were initially
suspended.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants have tried to impress
upon the Court that the subsequent antecedents have not resulted
into conviction, and therefore, should not be considered as
detrimental to the present applications for suspension of sentence.
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 10:41:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30857-DB] (7 of 7) [SOSA-1743/2024]
6. However, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned
counsel for the complainant have opposed the applications.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
8. This Court finds that not only there are heavy antecedents,
but also looking into the previous orders passed by this Court on
07.01.2020 in D.B. Criminal Misc. Application Nos.233/2019,
234/2019 & 235/2019 and order dated 23.08.2023 passed in D.B.
Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal)
Nos.628/2023 & 843/2023 as well as also considering the chart of
antecedents provided in the reply of the State, which shows that
more than 13 cases have been registered against the appellants
after their sentences were initially suspended in 2007-08, does not
induce confidence of this Court to make any intervention in the
applications for suspension of sentence.
9. In view of the foregoing, this Court does not find it a fit case
to exercise its discretion in favour of the appellants,
10. Accordingly, the present applications for suspension of
sentence are hereby dismissed.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J. (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
16-19 Zeeshan
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 10:41:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link