[2025:RJ-JP:18284] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 754/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.908/2025 Amit S/o Surendra, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 21, Town Laxmangarh, District Sikar (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Bikaner) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanmay Dhand For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 30/04/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant-Amit S/o Surendra aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 07.03.2025 in Sessions Case (CIS) No.61/2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 307, 341, 323 IPC and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that this is a false and fabricated case wherein appellant was framed due to animosity between the parties. He referred Ex.P-15/16 and submitted that for incident of intervening night of 20.10.2016-21.10.2016 the information was given to police station Laxmangarh at 10.10 A.M. on 21.10.2016 and on the basis of this, FIR was registered. He further referred the facts of the case and submitted that initially the victim was treated at Laxmangarh and then at Sikar and later at private [2025:RJ-JP:18284] (2 of 4) [SOSA-754/2025] hospital, Jaipur but ultimately left private hospital wherein MLC was prepared by medical jurist after two days of incident. He further submitted that at the time of undergoing treatment at private hospital at Jaipur just after the incident the injured and relatives have mentioned that injured has fell from staircase and due to felling he sustained injuries. He further referred the statement of PW-3 Dr. Nemi Chand Poonia and submitted that the treating doctor has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution as he admitted certain portion of Ex.P-5. He further submitted that the injured was examined by Pw-5 Dr. Suman Dutta and injury report was prepared but nowhere it was mentioned that the injury on head is dangerous to life. He also mentioned the statement of PW-8 Dr. Achal Sharma and submitted that injured had voluntarily left SMS hospital. He further referred opinion of medical board and submitted that opinion of medical board is inconclusive and nowhere established that injury sustained by injured is dangerous to life. He further referred the cross-examination of injured and other witnesses and submitted that the trial court has ignored these discrepancies while convicting appellant. At last, he submitted that appellant was on bail during trial and never misused the liberty granted in his favour. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificate along with reply to SOS application and same are taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:18284] (3 of 4) [SOSA-754/2025] 5. On the basis of Ex.P-15 (written report), FIR No.297/2016 under Sections 341, 323, 307 and 34 IPC was registered on 21.10.2016 at P.S. Laxmangarh, Sikar. After investigation police has filed charge-sheet against appellant. The trial court has framed charge under Sections 323, 341 and 307 IPC. The prosecution has examined 17 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he opted not to submit any defence evidence. The accused has exhibited 4 documents Ex.D1 to D4. The trial court has convicted appellant under Sections 341, 323 and 307 IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to appellant is 10 years. 6. We have considered the statement of Pw-3 Dr. Nemi Chand, PW-5 Dr. Suman Dutta, PW_8 Dr. Achal Sharma and PW-15 Dr. Mohit and also perused the medical documents Exhibit P2 to P5, P7, P8, P12, P13 and P20. Also considered statement of PW-2 Mukesh who is injured in the instant case along with statement of PW-6 Vishwanath, who is complainant. PW-7 Harish was named as an eye-witness who is brother of injured PW-2 Mukesh. 7. The appellant was released on bail in pursuant to order dated 27.07.2018 in third bail application No.8145/2018 passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court. 8. Having considered aforesaid and also the fact that disposal of appeal will take its own time, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case, therefore it is appropriate to allow SOS application. 9. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:18284] (4 of 4) [SOSA-754/2025] allowed and sentence of appellant accused-Amit S/o Surendra 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 11.08.2025 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 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. 10. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 11. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /43