[2025:RJ-JP:39437] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1435/2025 Deshraj S/o Hari Singh, R/o Pasi Ka Pura, Sone Ka Gurja Police Station Badi, District District Dholpur (Appellant Is In Judicial Custody In District Jail, Dholpur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Kumar Jain Ms. Diksha Meena Mr. Chandra Kant Chouhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 24/09/2025 1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, Dacoity Influence of Area Act Matter, District Dholpur vide judgment dated 09.07.2025 in Special Sessions Case No.01/2018 for the offences under Section 216A IPC and 11 Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1986 (in short Act of 1986) and sentenced for seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and 10 years Simple Imprisonment respectively with default stipulation. 2. Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. Pending disposal of the appeal, by way of present application under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 the appellant seek suspension of sentence and release on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:39437] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1435/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court has not appreciated the testimony of witnesses examined by the prosecution in proper manner. He further submits that the finding arrived at by the trial Court is perverse illegal and against the material exists on record. He argued that the trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 216A of IPC and under Section 11 of the Act of 1986 but, separate sentencing under Section 11 of the Act is not permissible by virtue of provision itself. Above Section provides for punishment for scheduled offence generally and as per schedule appended to the above Act, Section 216A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) falls within the purview of the scheduled offence. 4. As per provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 offence under Section 216 IPC is a bailable offence. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the necessary ingredients of offence under Section 216-A IPC which says that there must be a reason to believe that any persons are about to commit or have recently committed robbery or dacoity. He further argued that no weapon has been recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant and all witnesses are police witnesses thus interested witnesses. He contended that though there is criminal antecedent of five cases against the appellant but in most of the cases, the appellant has been acquitted. The appellant was on bail during trial and at present he is in incarceration for last around four months. The hearing of the appeal is not likely to be concluded in near future. Therefore, the application for suspension of sentence may be allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:39437] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1435/2025] 5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence. 6. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant on the application for suspension of sentence and perused the material available on record. 7. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, period of custody and in view of the judgment of this Court in Kedar & ors. Vs. State, RLW 2006(1) Raj. 253 and the fact that disposal of the 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 appellant Deshraj S/o Hari Singh. 8. It is, therefore, ordered that the sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended till disposal of the appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he 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 he shall appear before this Court on 28.10.2025 and as and when called upon to do so on the condition indicated below: (i) that the appellant shall mark his presence before the SHO, Police Station Badi, District Dholpur in the second week of every month. (ii) The concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register for this purpose. In case, the appellant fails to mark his presence in the concerned Police Station as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to [2025:RJ-JP:39437] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1435/2025] immediately report the matter to this court in this regard. (iii) If breach of any of the directions is reported or come to the notice of this Court the same shall alone be a reason for this Court to recall this order. 9. The application is accordingly disposed of. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J bmg /40