[2025:RJ-JP:22560] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 999/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1311/2025 Meghraj @ Kalu @ Meghu @ Daku Son Of Kajod, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Ward N.o 7 Near Girls School Shivad Police Station Chauth Ka Barwada District Sawai Madhopur (At Present Confined In Judicial Custody Children Home Tonk ) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Shanker Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 28/05/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant- Meghraj @ Kalu Alias Meghu @ Daku Son Of Kajod in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 30.04.2025 in Sessions Case No. (CIS) 121/2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Children Court Tonk whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 304 (Part-II), 201 of IPC and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated by police only due to suspicion. He further submitted that at the time of registration [2025:RJ-JP:22560] (2 of 4) [SOSA-999/2025] of crime this appellant was juvenile and a charge-sheet was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board. He further submitted that the entire set of evidence led by prosecution indicate that there was no motive behind the crime and the prosecution has failed to not establish as there was no report of theft or robbery of jwellery after death of deceased. He further submitted that no recovery was effected from the present appellant and no eye-witness is available on record. He further submitted that the trial court without considering that this is a case of no evidence even convicted the present appellant accused on basis of circumstantial evidence. He further referred the investigation and evidence of investigating officer and submitted that a person from whom recovery was effected was not forwarded to face trial as an accused. At last, he submitted that the maximum punishment awarded to this appellant is six years and the appellant has already served more than three years so he is entitled to be released on bail. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted latest custody certificate and same is taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned public prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of report, Ex.P-1 filed by PW-1 Lattu, FIR No.44/2022 was registered on 20.01.2022 at P.S. Newai, Dist. Tonk under Section 302 IPC. After investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against appellant who was juvenile on date of incident. Learned Juvenile Justice Board after preliminary assessment under Section 15 read with Section 18(3) of Juvenile [2025:RJ-JP:22560] (3 of 4) [SOSA-999/2025] Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 on 25.11.2022 has forwarded the matter to children court. After framing charge, prosecution has examined 26 witnesses and exhibited 58 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but he has submitted DW-1 Panna Lal as defence evidence. The trial court has acquitted appellant accused from charge under Section 302 and 392 IPC but sentenced him under Section 304 (Part-II) and 201 IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to appellant is 6 years. The period of sentence undergone till date is more than three years and twenty days which is more than 50% of the awarded sentence. 6. Very recently on 08.05.2025 while considering Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 4/2021 in Re-policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering judgment in case of Bhagwan Ram Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujarat (1999) 4 SCC 421, NCB Vs. Lakwinder Singh 2025 SCC Online SC 366 and Atul @ Ashutosh Vs. State of U.P. 2024 (3) SCC 663 has held that where there is a fixed term sentence, normally power of suspension of sentence, should be exercised liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances brought on record. The High Court is bound by the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard. 7. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case, but looking to period of custody undergone by petitioner in the case, it is a fit case to enlarge appellant on bail. 8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be [2025:RJ-JP:22560] (4 of 4) [SOSA-999/2025] enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellant accused- Meghraj @ Kalu @ Meghu @ Daku Son Of Kajod, is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would execute 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 11.09.2025 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. 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 CHETNA BEHRANI /36(SOSA)