[2025:RJ-JP:19996] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 813/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.995/2025 1. Shyam Swaroop S/o Badrilal Dhakar, R/o Shahpura, Police Station Seeswali, District Baran. (At Present Confined In District Jail Baran). 2. Ramgopal S/o Nandlal Dhakar, R/o Tejgarh, Police Station Baran Sadar, Presently Shahpura, Police Station Seeswali. (At Present Confined In District Jail Baran). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Nagar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 12/05/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellants-Shyam Swaroop S/o Badrilal Dhakar and Ramgopal S/o Nandlal Dhakar in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 09.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.24A/2025 (CIS-121/2017) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Baran whereby appellant Shyam Swaroop was convicted for offence under Sections 308 read with 34, 323, 324 IPC and appellant Ramgopal was convicted for offence under Sections 308, 323 and 324 read with 34 IPC and sentenced accordingly. [2025:RJ-JP:19996] (2 of 5) [SOSA-813/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants are innocent and they were falsely implicated. He further submitted that report Ex.P-4 was registered against several persons but police has filed charge-sheet against 8 persons. He further submitted that out of eight persons, two were expired during trial and 4 were acquitted by trial court. He further submitted that no specific attribution of assault was made upon any of the appellant and trial court has convicted appellants under Section 308 or 308/34 IPC. He further submitted that as per PW- 13 Dr. Kanhaiya Lal Meena seven injuries were reported on body of injured Suresh and out of which injury No.1 was opined as dangerous to life. He further referred cross-examination of PW-13 and submitted that this injury was not found to be grievous in nature and without opinion of grievous injury, said injury was opined as dangerous to life. He further submitted that trial court has ignored the cross-examination of PW-13 and without considering the opinion, has convicted appellants. He further referred cross-examination of injured PW-4 Suresh Kumar and submitted that specific attribution was not made upon any of the appellants. He further referred other prosecution witnesses and submitted that even the radiographer was not examined to support opinion of PW-13. He also referred the prosecution evidence and submitted that weapons allegedly used was not produced by prosecution. At last, he submitted that both the appellants were on bail during trial and they had not misused the liberty granted to them. [2025:RJ-JP:19996] (3 of 5) [SOSA-813/2025] 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificates and criminal antecedents and same are taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of Ex.P-4 submitted by PW-5 Surendra Kumar Nagar, FIR No28/2012 was registered at P.S. Siswali, Baran on 14.02.2012. The police has filed charge-sheet against eight persons. During trial, two persons have expired and proceedings were dropped against them. After framing the charge, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 35 documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they have not submitted any defence evidence but exhibited two documents. Four accused Mukesh, Bhuwnesh, Govind Murari and Deepak were acquitted whereas proceedings was dropped against Lalit and Mahaveer on their death but two accused Ramgopal and Shyam Swaroop were convicted under Sections 323, 324 or 324/34 and 308 or 308/34 IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to each of the appellant is four years. 6. These appellants were on bail during trial. The criminal antecedents indicated that one more case was registered against Shyam Swaroop and same is pending before the court whereas three more criminal cases were registered against Ramgopal and out of which two were disposed of and resulted into acquittal and one case is pending before the court. 7. We have considered the statement of PW-4 Suresh, who is an injured and some specific reference was made about his cross- examination. We have also considered statement of complainant [2025:RJ-JP:19996] (4 of 5) [SOSA-813/2025] PW-5 Surendra Kumar and specific reference was made about him. We have also considered injury report Ex.P-33 and opinion of PW-13 Dr. Kanhiaya Lal Meena. 8. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case but having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that disposal of appeal will take its own time, 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 appellants can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellants accused-Shyam Swaroop S/o Badrilal Dhakar and Ramgopal S/o Nandlal Dhakar is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of them 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 their appearance in this court on 22.08.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. After release of appellant on bail, 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 [2025:RJ-JP:19996] (5 of 5) [SOSA-813/2025] 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 /34