Rohtash & Ors. v. High Court of Delhi

1. Admit.

2. List the present revision petition in due course in the category of 'Regulars’ as per the year of its seniority.

3. Trial court record be requisitioned in the digitalized form. CRL.M.(BAIL) 749/2023

4. The present application has been filed by the revisionists under Section 397 (1) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the present revision petition.

5. By way of the present revision petition, the revisionists have challenged the impugned judgment dated 07.08.2019 whereby the revisionists were convicted under Section 193 IPC and vide order on sentence dated 28.08.2019, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years each along with fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

6. Heard.

7. Records perused.

8. It was submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that the maximum punishment awarded to the revisionists is two years rigorous imprisonment each and out of the sentence awarded, the revisionists have already served approximately 2 ½ months of rigorous imprisonment. It was further submitted that the present revisionists have clean past antecedents. It was further submitted by him that revisionists are senior citizens and also suffering from old age ailments. It was further submitted by learned counsel that disposal of the present petition may take considerable time, therefore, it was prayed that the sentence of the revisionists be suspended till the disposal of the present petition.

9. On the other hand, it was submitted by learned SPP while opposing the present suspension of sentence application that allegations against the revisionists are serious in nature for providing false evidence in the court of law. It was further submitted by him that the revisionists have the veracity to produce false and fabricated evidence to the court of law, this shows that the revisionists don’t have any respect for the court of law.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and Anr. (1973) 2 SCC 406 has observed that every incorrect and false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. The court has to exercise judicial discretion in light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify the feeling of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly that the court should direct prosecution.

11. I have perused the nominal roll dated 23.07.2023. A perusal of the same shows that revisionists have undergone more than 2 ½ months out of total sentence of two years awarded to them. It further reveals that the jail conduct of the revisionists is satisfactory.

12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances; the nature of allegations against the revisionists which in my opinion can be looked through a lenient perspective and since the hearing of the revision petition is likely to take some time, the present application is allowed and the sentence of the revisionists awarded vide impugned order on sentence dated 28.08.2019 is suspended till the disposal of the present revision petition and the revisionists are admitted to bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned jail superintendent, subject to the conditions that they shall not indulge in any illegal/criminal activities and they shall not leave this country without prior permission of this Court.

13. The revisionists shall remain present in Court at the time of hearing of the present revision petition.

14. The application is disposed of accordingly.

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J AUGUST 16, 2023