[2025:RJ-JP:38173-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc.2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 669/2025 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 360/2022 Ajay @ Mangilal S/o Bajrang Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Ramgarh, Police Station Dataramgarh, Dist. Sikar Rajasthan (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Bikaner) ----Applicant/Accused Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 18/09/2025 1. This second suspension of sentence applications has been filed by the present accused-applicant along with the appeal. 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter. He further submits that accused-applicant has served the sentence for more than five years. He further submits that the hearing of appeal may take long time and prayed that sentence awarded to [2025:RJ-JP:38173-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-669/2025] the applicant may be suspended and he be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the present application for suspension of sentence and submits that first application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of the applicant was dismissed vide order dated 06.11.2023, which reads as under:- “1. Accused-applicant has filed this application for suspension of sentence. 2. Heard on application for suspension of sentence. 3. It is contended by counsel appearing for the applicant that there is no report with regard to blood grouping. There is no fingerprint report to establish that knife which was recovered at the instance of the accused-applicant was used by the applicant. It is also contended that there is no eye-witness to the incident and the case rests upon circumstantial evidence. It is further contended that disposal of appeal is bound to take time and applicant has remained in custody for a period of three years and four months. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is contended that it is a case of twin murder. Father and mother of the complainant have been murdered by the applicant and he had informed the complainant on mobile that he has murdered his parents. It is also contended that blood stained knife and clothes of the accused were recovered on the day of the incident. 5. We have considered the contentions. 6. Looking to the statements of PW-9 & PW-10; also looking to the recovery of blood stained knife and clothes of the accused; also taking note of the fact that applicant had made a call on the same day and on the basis of which his name appeared in the F.I.R., we are not inclined to entertain the present application for suspension of sentence. 7. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is dismissed.” [2025:RJ-JP:38173-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-669/2025] 5. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, also considering the fact that after dismissing the first suspension of sentence application on merits by this court, there is no change in the circumstances except period of custody, in our considered view, no case is made out for allowing this criminal miscellaneous suspension of sentence application. Hence, the second suspension of sentence application is dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Anu /19