[2025:RJ-JP:32684] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1307/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1789/2025 1. Bharat Lal Son Of Moolchand, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Gojyari Police Station Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Presently Confined In District Jail Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) 2. Devlal @ Devilal Son Of Moolchand, Resident Of Gojyari Police Station Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Presently Confined In District Jail Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) 3. Jansilal Son Of Shyoram, Resident Of Gojyari Police Station Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Presently Confined In District Jail Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) 4. Kedar Son Of Ratanlal, Resident Of Gojyari Police Station Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Presently Confined In District Jail Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1295/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1767/2025 1. Gyan Singh Son Of Jagram, Address - Resident Of Gojyari Police Station Malarna Doongar District Sawai Madhopur (Raj) (At Present In Central Jail, Sewar Bharatpur) 2. Batti Lal Son Of Girraj, Resident Of Gojyari Police Station Malarna Doongar District Sawai Madhopur (Raj) (At Present In Central Jail, Sewar Bharatpur) ----Petitioners Versus [2025:RJ-JP:32684] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1307/2025] State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Mr. Mahander Meena For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 20/08/2025 1. The applicants have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 27.06.2025 in Sessions Case No.03/2025 (37/2021) (29/2021) for offences punishable under Sections 148, 447, 341, 323, 325, 427, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced accordingly. 2. Since both these applications arise out of common order, hence, they are being decided by this single order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant on the application for suspension of sentence and perused the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent persons and they have falsely been implicated in these case. In fact, applicants are in possession of the disputed land in which the Revenue Court has granted the stay in their favour. Despite the said fact, the complainant side has started to cultivate the land and when applicants went on the spot then complainant’s side armed with the lathi, sticks and axe attacked on the applicants. FIR was lodged against the 36 [2025:RJ-JP:32684] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1307/2025] persons. No specific act has been attributed to any person except to the accused-Balram. Complainant-Netram was not an eye witness. Revenue litigations are pending between the parties. This is the case of free fight and a cross FIR was registered by the applicants also in which the complainant side has also got conviction. During trial the applicants are on bail. Court has convicted the applicants while ignoring the factual aspects as well as settled position of law. He further submits that the disposal of the appeal will take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the applicants in further custody, hence the suspension of sentence application of the applicants may be allowed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence. 6. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record and especially the fact that there are cross cases and the judgment of conviction was passed in both the cases and in cross case the application for suspension of sentence was allowed, specific role of causing death was attributed to accused-Balram, period of custody and the fact that the applicants were on bail during trial and the disposal of this appeal is likely to take considerable time but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of the applicants-Bharat Lal Son Of Moolchand, Devlal @ Devilal Son Of Moolchand, Jansilal Son Of Shyoram, Kedar Son Of Ratanlal, Gyan Singh Son Of Jagram and Batti Lal Son Of Girraj. [2025:RJ-JP:32684] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1307/2025] 7. [2025:RJ-JP:32684] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1307/2025] 7. It is, therefore, ordered that the sentence of the applicants shall remain suspended till disposal of the appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court to the effect that they shall appear before this Court on 24.09.2025 and as and when called upon to do so. 8. The applications are accordingly disposed of. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Arun/43-44