[2025:RJ-JP:1074-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1978/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.365/2024 Mukut Bihari @ Bihari Son Oof Ganeshi, R/o Baroli Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Bharatpur). ----Applicant Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1674/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.310/2024 Yogesh S/o Rambharoshi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Baroli P.S. Bhusawar, Dist. Bharatpur (Raj). (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Sevar Bharatpur). ----Applicant Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1791/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.343/2024 Govind Prasad S/o Parsoliram, R/o Baroli P.S. Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj). (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Sevar Bharatpur). ----Applicant Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent [2025:RJ-JP:1074-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1978/2024] D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1792/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.344/2024 1. Udal Prasad S/o Nathi Lal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident of Village Baroli P.S. Bhusawar, Dist. Bharatpur (Rajasthan). (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Sevar Bharatpur). 2. Atar Singh S/o Natthi Lal, Resident of Village Baroli P.S. Bhusawar, Dist Bharatpur (Rajasthan). (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Sevar Bharatpur). ----Applicants Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1793/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.345/2024 Rajpal Son Of Ganeshi, Aged About 30 Years, Resident of Baroli P.S. Bhusawar, District Bharatpur. (At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Bharatpur). ----Applicant Versus State of Rajasthan through the Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. N.K. Tiwari Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma Mr. Bhagat Singh Sharma on behalf of Mr. Neeraj Joshi Mr. Anupam Sharma Mr. Ashvin Garg For State For Complainant/Victim : : Mr. Amit Punia, Addl. G.A. with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. G.A. None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA [2025:RJ-JP:1074-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1978/2024] Order 08/01/2025 1. Accused-applicants have preferred these applications for suspension of sentence. 2. Heard on applications for suspension of sentence. 3. It is informed by learned Addl. G.A. that complainant/victim has been intimated about filing of these applications for suspension of sentence. Despite intimation, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant/victim. Report in this regard has also been submitted and the same is taken on record. 4. It is contended by counsel appearing for the accused- applicants that applicants have remained in custody for a period of more than one and a half years. They were on bail during trial. None of the injuries sustained by the deceased is on vital part of the body, except one simple injury on the head. It is also contended that the deceased died due excessive bleeding from the fractures caused on the hand and legs. It is further contended that eight persons were named in the parcha bayan, two were juvenile who were tried by the Juvenile Court and have been acquitted by the Court. It is contended that disposal of appeal will take time. 5. Counsel appearing for the applicants have placed reliance on “Molu & Ors. vs. State of Haryana” (AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2499), wherein there were injuries caused on non vital part of the body and Court converted the conviction from Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304, Part II of the I.P.C. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed these present applications for suspension of sentence. It is contended [2025:RJ-JP:1074-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1978/2024] that deceased died due to excessive bleeding which took place from the injuries caused by the applicants. 7. We have considered the contentions. 8. Considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the applicants; also taking note of the fact that applicants were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take time; deceased has not sustained any injury on vital part of the body, except one simple injury on the head; applicants have remained in custody for a period of more than one and a half years; two of the accused, who were tried by the Juvenile Court, have been acquitted, we deem it proper to allow these applications for suspension of sentence. 9. Accordingly, these applications for suspension of sentence are allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused applicants in Sessions Case No.04/2021(12/19)(27/11)(13/09) (C.I.S. No.05/2021) shall remain suspended if the accused- applicants furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court to the effect that they shall appear before this Court as and when called upon to do so. 10. A copy of this order be placed in each connected files. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J AMIT/75-79