HEERA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

(2.) The instant second application for suspension of sentence under Sec. 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant Heera, who has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 5/2013.

(3.) Mr. J.V.S. Deora, learned counsel representing the appellant-applicant, points out that this court was not apprised of the correct factual situation when the first application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of the applicant Heera was rejected. Referring to the statement of the Investigating Officer Mr. Liladhar (P.W.15), Mr. Deora points out that the appellant was not subjected to test identification during investigation. He, thus, urges that first time identification of the accused by the witnesses during trial is of no evidentiary worth whatsoever. He further points out that the appeal has not been listed for hearing even once despite the fact that the accused is in custody since long. On these grounds, he craves indulgence of bail for the appellant during pendency of the appeal.