[2025:RJ-JP:8572] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 200/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2843/2024 Rimpy Sardar @ Tejendra Pal Singh S/o Let Rajendra Singh Sahni, R/o Near Green Park Bhimganj, Mandi Kota (Petitioner Is In Central Jail Kota) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pallav Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 25/02/2025 1. Instant 2nd SOS application is preferred by appellant- accused-Rimpy Sardar @ Tejendra Pal Singh in pending appeal, admitted for hearing on 25.10.2024 and filed against order of conviction and sentence dated 23.09.2024 in Sessions Case No. 78/2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) No.2, Kota. The appellant-accused was convicted and sentenced under Sections 341, 323/34, 324/34, 308/34 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act. The maximum punishment awarded upon appellant is seven years under Section 308/34 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that co-accused was already released on bail and this appellant has served sentence of almost six months against the awarded sentence. He further [2025:RJ-JP:8572] (2 of 3) [SOSA-200/2025] submits that out of 29 cases, one relating to FIR No. 202/2020 was quashed by this Hon’ble Court on 08.08.2023. He further submits that 22 cases were clubbed together by order dated 01.05.2023 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. He further submits that in other cases, investigation is pending and they are related to property dispute. He submits that the appellant is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated. He submits that no injury was caused due to use of any sharp weapon. He also referred the material on record and submitted that a sword was allegedly recovered from possession of present appellant, though, there was no injury by sword upon injured. At last, he submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail and SOS wherein there were criminal antecedents. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submits that there were 28 criminal cases pending against the appellant and he is actively indulged in criminal activities. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the entire record. 5. First SOS was dismissed by this Court on 19.11.2024, wherein we have noticed that there were 24 criminal cases registered against present appellant. The Trial Court has noticed that there were 29 criminal cases against the appellant, but learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a list of 28 criminal cases registered against the appellant. 6. Order dated 08.08.2023 indicates that FIR Nos. 202/2020, 191/2020 and 385/2020 registered at P.S. Gumanpura, District Kota were quashed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. The list [2025:RJ-JP:8572] (3 of 3) [SOSA-200/2025] submitted by learned Public Prosecutor and procured from P.S. Bhimganjmandi, District Kota City indicates that none of the above three FIRs figure in list of 28 cases. It means, there were other criminal cases registered against appellant and same were not brought on record. 7. Having considered the fact that the appellant is having a criminal background and several cases were registered against him out of which, a list of 28 cases is available on record whereas the information supplied by the counsel indicates that 3 more FIRs were registered in the year 2020. It means, neither the appellant nor prosecution has brought details of all cases before this Court. In case of State through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi 2005 (8) SCC 21, Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the grounds for dismissal of bail application, which includes criminal background of any individual. The counsel has apprised that this Court has clubbed investigation related to 22 FIRs, as figured in list. 8. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for appellant and also perusing the material available on record, I am of the considered view that the appellant having a criminal background, though 22 FIRs relating to Surendra Pal Sahni were clubbed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2144/2023 but still looking to overall circumstances, this is not a fit case to enlarge appellant on bail (SOS). 9. In view of above, the 2nd SOS application preferred by appellant is hereby dismissed. 10. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /01