[2025:RJ-JP:35333-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Bail (Suspension Of Sentence) Application No. 1893/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 146/2022 Abdul Rahim S/o Abdul Kaddus, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Shivghat Gali Rampura, P.S. Rampura Kotwali, District Kota. (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Kota) ----Accused-Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rizwan Ahmed For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 03/09/2025 1. Heard on second suspension of sentence application. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter. He further submits that the hearing of appeal may take long time and prayed that sentence awarded to the applicant may be suspended and he be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 3. This Court while dismissing the first Suspension of Sentence Application on 05.05.2023 observed as under :- “1. It is informed by learned Additional Govt. Advocate that victim has been informed about filing of the appeal and application for suspension of sentence. Report in this regard has been submitted by learned Additional Govt. Advocate and the same is taken on record. 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of victim. [2025:RJ-JP:35333-DB] (2 of 2) [SOSA-1893/2024] 3. Accused-appellant has preferred this application for suspension of sentence. 4. Heard on application for suspension of sentence. 5. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that a false case has been registered against the appellant. 6. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate has opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is contended that victim in this case was a six years old girl. It is also contended that DNA report matches. Victim has also deposed against PW.1. 7. We have considered the contentions. 8. Considering the age of victim and DNA report is also matching, we are not inclined to entertain the application for suspension of sentence. 9. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application is accordingly, dismissed.” 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the second suspension of sentence application. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the second suspension of sentence application. 5. We have heard counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and also considering the fact that earlier suspension of sentence application has been dismissed on merits and there is no change in the circumstances except for the custody period, no case is made out for allowing this criminal miscellaneous suspension of sentence application. 7. Hence, the second suspension of sentence application is dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Sudeepak/19