HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 675/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 814/2025 Sushil Kumar Kushwah S/o Jagdish, R/o Village Umari Tehsil Madhogarh P.s. Rampura District Jalon U.p At Present Tenant House Of Roopnarayan Khatik Chamda Market Mandi Khatikan P.s. Ramganj Jaipur (At Present Confined At Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 16/05/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred in pending appeal which was admitted on 03.04.2025 and aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 07.03.2025 in Sessions Case No. 3/2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge no.5, Jaipur Metroppolitan-II whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 304-II, 323 of IPC and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted the appellant is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated in the instant case. He referred the report (2 of 4) [SOSA-675/2025] Ex. P/1 and submitted that the place of incident was house of appellant accused where deceased and his family members came to assault present appellant and his family members. He further submitted that as per Ex. P/1, PW-2 Laxmi Devi and PW-3 Pooja, 5 persons were present from complainant group, whereas 3-4 members of family of accused were there. He further submitted that this is a case of free fight and no specific attribution of any injury was made upon present appellant. He further submitted that the complainant party was aggressor and initially the case was registered under Section 308 IPC. He also submitted that the allegation is made for assault by stick and same is not sufficient to constitute intention of appellant. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to explain discrepancies and material contradictions. He further submitted that the trial court has convicted present appellant under Section 304-II IPC and this appellant was on bail during trial. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of report Ex. P/1 dated 10.10.2021 submitted by PW-7 Ranjeet Kumar FIR no. 540/2021 under Sections 323, 341, 308 of 34 of IPC was registered at P.S. Ramganj, Jaipur. After investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against appellant under Sections 323, 341, 302 IPC and after framing of charge prosecution has examined 21 witnesses and exhibited 51 documents and 5 articles. The accused was examined under (3 of 4) [SOSA-675/2025] Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he has not submitted any defence evidence but exhibited three documents. This appellant accused was convicted under Sections 323 and 304-II of IPC. The maximum sentence awarded is 5 years. 6. We have considered the statement of PW-2 Laxmi Devi (wife of deceased) and also injured in the incident. Learned counsel has referred cross-examination of PW-2 and we have specifically considered the same. We have also considered the statement of PW-3 Pooja (daughter of deceased) and also injured in the incident and we have considered cross-examination of PW-3. Injured were examined by PW-4 Dr. Mahesh and PW-8 Dr. Om Prakash. The deceased Satya Narayan expired on 13.10.2021 and his body was examined by PW-17 Dr. Vikas and prepared post- mortem Ex. P/15 but prior to death, deceased was examined by PW-18 Dr. Deependra Singh. The matter was investigated by PW- 19 Ramawtar and PW-21 Buri Singh and we have considered the statement of these witnesses. The appellant accused was released on bail in pursuant to order dated 04.04.2024 in second bail application no. 12236/2023 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The disposal of appeal will take its own time and the ground raised by learned counsel can be considered at the time of final consideration of the matter. The appellant has already served more than 50% of the sentence and period of custody is more than 2 years 8 months and 26 days. 7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellant accused- Sushil Kumar (4 of 4) [SOSA-675/2025] Kushwah S/o Jagdish is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 28.08.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. After release of appellant on bail, he will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that he is involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled. 2. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 3. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 4. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 8. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 9. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J Chetna/21(SOSA)