2022 (2) TMI 1504 - HC - Indian Laws

Fourth application for suspension of sentence - health condition - accused suffering from HIV (AIDS) and lungs ailment - HELD THAT - The third application for suspension of sentence was dismissed on merits by this Court on 08.02.2021 wherein each and every aspect of the matter was discussed including the fact that as many as 17 criminal cases are pending against the accused-appellant and specific allegation has been levelled against the appellant for causing injuries by gunshot to Mool Singh and Ganga Singh. After dismissal of third application there is no change in circumstances. The health condition of the appellant has improved and now he is able to walk though after walking some distance he faces difficulty in breathing. It has nowhere been mentioned in the report that the health condition of appellant has deteriorated as the said condition existed even on 08.02.2021 when the third application for suspension of sentence was considered and rejected. Thus the contention of counsel for the appellant that the condition of the appellant is deteriorating is unfounded. Accordingly the fourth application for suspension of sentence is hereby rejected on merits as well as considering the medical ground.

Summary

The Rajasthan High Court, through Justices Manoj Kumar Garg and Rameshwar Vyas, rejected the appellant's fourth application for suspension of sentence on both merits and medical grounds. The appellant, suffering from HIV+ (AIDS) since 2008 and other ailments, sought suspension citing deteriorating health and reliance on the Supreme Court ruling in Shankar Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan. However, the Court noted the third suspension application was dismissed on merits on 08.02.2021 after thorough consideration, including the appellant's involvement in 17 pending criminal cases and allegations of gunshot injuries. A recent medical report indicated the appellant's health had improved and did not show deterioration since the last application. The Court distinguished the cited Supreme Court case, where the accused required extensive care post-spine surgery, unlike the present case. Concluding that the appellant's condition was not worsening and considering the serious criminal background, the Court held: "we are not inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellant," thereby rejecting the application.