[2025:RJ-JP:36737-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc IIndSuspension Of Sentence Application No. 1955/2024 in D. B. Criminal Appeal No.224/2023 Bhanwarlal Son Of Shri Chhitarmal, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Vijaygovindpura Police Police Station Jober District Jaipur (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p 2. Santosh Kumar S/o Shri Durga Lal Dhobi, R/o Ward No. 18, Renwal District Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohammad Aslam, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, Deputy Government Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 10/09/2025 1. The matter is heard on the second application seeking suspension of sentence. 2. Counsel for the applicant-accused submits that the applicant- accused has been in judicial custody since the date of his conviction. It is accordingly prayed that the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant-accused be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. 3. This Court had previously adjudicated upon and dismissed the first application for suspension of sentence preferred by the [2025:RJ-JP:36737-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-1955/2024] applicant-accused by a reasoned order dated 22.02.2024. The said order reads, inter alia, as follows: “1. This application for suspension of sentence has been filed on behalf of the applicant. 2. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter and the disposal of appeal is likely to take long time. Hence, the sentence awarded to the applicant may be suspended and he be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the present application for suspension of sentence and submits that PW3-victim in her statement has leveled the allegation of committing rape with her on the applicant-accused along with other co- accused persons. Counsel further submits that the victim has been duly informed about the filing of appeal as well as present application for suspension of sentence. However, no one has appeared on behalf of the victim to oppose the present application for suspension of sentence. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the statement of PW3-victim and the age of victim which was less than sixteen years at the time of alleged incident, in our view, no case is made out to allow the present application for suspension of sentence. 6. Hence, this criminal miscellaneous suspension of sentence application stands dismissed.” 4. Upon careful consideration, this Court is of the view that the first application seeking suspension of sentence having been dismissed on merits, and in the absence of any material change in circumstances, except for the additional duration of incarceration [2025:RJ-JP:36737-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-1955/2024] undergone by the applicant-accused, no justifiable ground has been made out warranting a different conclusion at this stage. 5. Consequently, in view of the earlier order passed by this Court on 22.02.2024, the present (second) application for suspension of sentence stands dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Tushar/1