HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 807/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.988/2025 1. Prem Singh Son Of Shri Bachansingh, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Kharsanki Police Station Govindgarh, District Alwar (Raj) (Presently Confined In Central Jail Alwar) 2. Suchchasingh Son Of Shri Bachansingh, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Kharsanki Police Station Govindgarh, District Alwar (Raj) (Presently Confined In Central Jail Alwar) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gurvindra SIngh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 08/07/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellants- Prem Singh Son Of Shri Bachansingh and Suchchasingh Son Of Shri Bachansingh in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 28.03.2025 in Sessions Case No.45/2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, Dist. Alwar whereby appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 341, 323 and 307/34 IPC and sentenced accordingly. (2 of 4) [SOSA-807/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the appellants while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that appellants are innocent persons and were falsely implicated by complainant. He further submitted that all prosecution witnesses are either interested witnesses or hostile and no independent witness has supported the case of prosecution. He further submitted that injury report clearly suggest that the injury is neither dangerous to life nor sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further referred cross-examination of PW-2 Dr. Ravi Mathur, and submitted he did not found any grievous injury and the trial court has ignored the evidence on record before drawing conclusion about offence under Section 307 IPC. He submitted that out of three cases, registered against Prem Singh, all were disposed of whereas one case against Succha Singh was disposed of and he has placed on record certain documents to fortify in support of his contention. At last, he submitted that appellants were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. He submitted custody certificates along with report received from concerned police station and same are taken on record. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that eye-witnesses were examined by prosecution to prove charge against appellants. He also submitted that main allegation is upon Prem Singh and the injury was attributed upon him. He further suggested that the injury was dangerous to life and injured has undergone surgical treatment. 4. Heard learned counsel for parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. (3 of 4) [SOSA-807/2025] 5. On the basis of report, Ex.P-4 filed by PW-3 Foja Singh about assault by Succha Singh and others against his son Rajendra, FIR No. 117/2014 at P.S. Govindgarh. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against appellants. After framing charge, prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents and two articles. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but he has not submitted any defence evidence. Appellant Succha Singh was released on bail in pursuant to order dated 09.07.2014 and Prem Singh was released on bail on 17.06.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 6. Injured Rajendra was examined as PW-12 and we have considered his cross-examination. Learned counsel for appellant has also referred evidence of PW-2 Dr. Ravi Mathur and we have considered the same along with evidence of PW-13 Dr. Dhruv Singh and PW-14 Dr. Bhanwar Lal Yadav. The discrepancies as referred by learned counsel for appellant can be considered at the time of final adjudication. The record suggest that three other cases against Prem Singh and one against Succha Singh but all were disposed of. Both the accused were on bail during trial. 7. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case to enlarge appellant on bail. 8. Therefore, the application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellants accused-Prem Singh Son Of Shri Bachansingh and Suchchasingh Son Of Shri Bachansingh is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of them would executes a personal bond in (4 of 4) [SOSA-807/2025] the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 30.10.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. After release of appellant on bail, they will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that they are involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled. 2. That they 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, they will give in writing their 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. 9. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 10. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /54