[2025:RJ-JP:2490-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1506/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.272/2024 Gautam Singh @ Uttam Singh Son Of Shri Prabhu Singh, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Loonsara Police Station Kuchera District Nagaur At Present Tenant Of Shri Kaan Singh House No. 57, Hanumant Nagar, Gokulpura Police Station Kardhani Jaipur West (At Present Confined In Special Central Jail Shyalawas Dausa ----Accused-Applicant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p 2. Prakhar Gupta Son Of Shri Tulsiram, Resident Of 6/63, Vidhyadhar Nagar Jaipur ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1274/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.226/2024 Vineet Singh Gaur S/o Ramesh Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Nubipura (Dhani Gaurpura) Police Station Fatehpur District Sikar At Present Plot No. 28 Sewaram Nagar, Behind Kanakpura Police Station Kardhani District Jaipur At Present R M Relationship Manager Au Bank Arg Group Road No. 9, Vishawkarma Jaipur (At Present Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Accused-Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2022/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.391/2024 [2025:RJ-JP:2490-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1506/2024] Shaitan Singh S/o Ugam Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Bajyavas P.s. Dataramgah Dist. Sikar (Raj) (At Present Accused Appellant Is Confined In Shalavas Jail Dausa) ----Accused-Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma Mr. Rajesh Goswami with Mr. Shiv Kumar Jangir & Mr. Garvit Sharma Mr. Anirudh Tyagi with Ms. Renu Kanwar Chauhan For State For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, Addl. G.A. with Mr. Kshitiz Tiwari & Ms. Neha Goyal Mr. Shailendra Kumar Agrawal with Mr. Ashindra Gautam & Mr. Arihant Samdaria HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 17/01/2025 1. Accused-applicants have preferred these applications for suspension of sentence. 2. Heard on applications for suspension of sentence. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-applicants that the conviction is based on the identification by the accused- applicants themselves. It is also contended that no CCTV footage from the place of occurrence was recovered. The CCTV footage is of a road where two motorcycles are seen and one person is running away with a motorcycle. It is further contended that there is no independent witness to identify the accused-applicants. There is no last seen evidence. It is further contended that [2025:RJ-JP:2490-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1506/2024] accused/applicant-Vineet Singh is not even seen in the CCTV footage. It is also contended that there is no established evidence that the bullet was fired from the firearm recovered from accused/applicant-Gautam Singh. 4. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the present applications for suspension of sentence. It is contended that on the day of the incident, in Naka Bandi Gautam Singh, Chetan, Pawan Yadav & Abhay Singh were rounded up by the police and from them more than Rs.2,46,000/- was recovered. It is further contended that accused/applicant-Gautam Singh was the one who has fired and from him the Katta was also recovered and there are as many as seven pending cases against accused/applicant- Gautam Singh. It is also contended that against accused/applicant-Shaitan Singh there is one more case, except the present one. It is also contended that from the FSL report, it is established that the fire arm which was recovered from accused/applicant-Gautam Singh was used for committing the offence. 5. We have considered the contentions. 6. From perusal of the record, it is evident that accused/applicant-Gautam Singhwas arrested on the day of the incident with cash and firearm was also recovered from him which is matching with the bullet recovered from the dead body. It is also evident that in the CCTV footage also all the accused- applicants except Vineet Singh were seen. As far as accused/applicant-Vineet Singh is concerned, he was in constant [2025:RJ-JP:2490-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1506/2024] touch with Gautam Singh the main accused and was the one who informed about the deceased who had come to deposit the amount. The case pertains to dacoity with murder, hence, we are not inclined to entertain these applications for suspension of sentence. 7. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Applications are accordingly, dismissed. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J LAKSHYA-DAKSH/84, 89-90