[2025:RJ-JP:28180] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 1281/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1748/2025 1. Jayram S/o Ranglal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Jopada P.s. Sadar Dausa Dist. Dausa (Raj) (Presently In Dsit. Jail Dausa) 2. Munshi Prahlad S/o Harlal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Jopada P.s. Sadar Dausa Dist. Dausa (Raj) (Presently In Dsit. Jail Dausa) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma with Ms. Pankaj Solanki For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Ritesh Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 25/07/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellants - Jayram S/o Ranglal and Munshi Prahlad S/o Harlal, in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 21.06.2025 in Sessions Case No. 05/2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dausa, District Daua whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 323, 341, 325 and 308 IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to present appellants is 4 years. 2. During course of arguments, learned counsel offers to withdraw SOS application for Jayram and he pressed only for [2025:RJ-JP:28180] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1281/2025] Munshi Prahlad. In view of this we are only considering SOS application of Munshi Prahlad. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that appellant is innocent person and he was falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submitted that there is a cross case and it is a case of free fight wherein both the parties have sustained injuries. He further submitted that the trial court without assessing the evidence has convicted both the appellant accused. He also submitted that the dispute pertains to revenue land and the order of the revenue court is in favour of present appellants. At last, he submitted that present appellant accused was on bail during trial and there is no direct attribution of injury upon him. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that the appellant accused Munshi Prahlad was already found guilty in another case. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. On the basis of report, Ex.P-1 about assault by group of persons FIR no. 206/2022 was registered at P.S. Sadar Dausa and after investigatiion police has filed a charge-sheet against 12 persons. After framing the charge prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and exhibited 60 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence they have examined DW-1 Ranglal and exhibited 15 documents. The trial court has convicted Jayram and Munshi and sentenced with [2025:RJ-JP:28180] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1281/2025] imprisonment. The trial court has convicted eight persons under Sections 323, 341 and 325 IPC but extended benefit of probation. 7. This appellant accused Munshi was convicted by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa under Sections 323, 341 read with Section 34 of IPC on 24.08.2016 in criminal case no. 557/2012 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa and further extended benefit of probation under Section 3 of POA Act. There is no other criminal antecedent against the appellant accused. This appellant accused was on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time. 8. 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- Munshi Prahlad on bail. 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 allowed and sentence of appellant accused- Munshi Prahlad S/o Harlal 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 18.11.2025 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. [2025:RJ-JP:28180] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1281/2025] 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. 5. In case, the applicant has violated any condition, then the order of SOS shall be recalled and cancelled. 10. The suspension of sentence application with regard to appellant accused Jayram S/o Ranglal is dismissed as withdrawn. 11. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 12. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /6(SOSA)