[2025:RJ-JP:15629] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 61/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.67/2025 Nanda Lal @ Nanda S/o Saudan, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Hasiwayavas, Police Station Gegal Ajmer (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg with Ms. Vaishnavi and Mr. Nonit Hateela For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 08/04/2025 1. Instant SOS application is referred by appellant-accused Nanda Lal @ Nanda in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.12.2024 in Sessions Case No.57/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Ajmer, whereby appellant- accused-Nanda Lal @ Nanda was convicted and sentenced under Sections 341, 324, 353, 332 and 333 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated by police. He further submits that injured Santosh was not on duty at the time of incident and no such document submitted by prosecution to [2025:RJ-JP:15629] (2 of 3) [SOSA-61/2025] indicate that he was working as a public servant at the time of alleged assault. He further submitted that as per report, there were involvement of group of persons and only because appellant, a well known person due to criminal antecedents, a charge-sheet was filed against him. He further submitted that there is no other evidence except the oral deposition of injured and interested police witnesses. He further referred the discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of material witnesses and submitted that the Trial Court has ignored the discrepancies, which is sufficient to dent the case of prosecution. At last, he submitted that the incident was a result of sudden provocation and appellant is having animosity with police, thus, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail, as the disposal of appeal will takes its own time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submitted that there were 45 criminal cases registered against the appellant-accused. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 5. On basis of report dated 07.03.2015 filed by Narendra Singh, for incident of 06.03.2015 FIR No.32/2015 was registered at Police Station Gegal, District Ajmer and after investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against 8 individuals including present appellant. Learned Trial Court has tried all 8 persons, who were charged-sheeted by police and 7 out of 8 were acquitted, but present appellant-accused was convicted and sentenced under Sections 341, 324, 353, 332 and 333 IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to present appellant is five years under Section 333 IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:15629] (3 of 3) [SOSA-61/2025] 6. We have gone through the statement of injured-Santosh and also considered the statement of other witnesses as referred by learned counsel for appellant. It is also an admitted fact that present appellant is a history sheeter of Police Station Gegal. Till date, 45 criminal cases were registered against the appellant and a list of same is placed on record by learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Having considered the criminal background of present appellant, I am of considered view that this is not a fit case, wherein the appellant can be enlarged on bail, particularly looking to principle of law as explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State Through C.B.I vs. Amaramani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21. 8. In view of aforesaid, the instant SOS application preferred by applicant-Nanda Lal @ Nanda is hereby dismissed. 9. Misc. Application, if any, stands disposed of. 10. List this appeal for hearing in the month of August, 2025. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /30