[2025:RJ-JP:14640-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application No. 1979/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.349/2023 Shambhunath Sasmal S/o Sh. Kalipada, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Kismat Khera, Police Station Kolaghat, District East Mednipur (West Bengal). (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P. 2. Suresh Kumar Soni S/o Late Sh. Harinarayan Soni, R/o Opposite Saini Dharamkanta Reengus Road, Police Station Chomu Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubham Saini for Mr. Jitendra Singh Tanwar For Complainant(s) For State (s) : : Mr. Sudhir Jain Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, Dy.GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 01/04/2025 1. This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the applicant along with the appeal. 2. Counsel for the applicant has annexed the certificate under Rule 311 (3) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules to the effect that during the trial, the applicant was not on bail and the sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded to the applicant under Section 302 of IPC and he is in judicial custody at Central Jail, [2025:RJ-JP:14640-DB] (2 of 2) [SOSA-1979/2024] Jaipur. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely im- plicated in this matter and 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. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has opposed the suspension of sentence application and submitted that according to recording of CCTV footage, the applicant was seen of attacking the deceased and he also running away with the jewellery. He further submits that the said jewellery has been recovered at the instance of the accused-applicant. He further submits that the accused-applicant was seen inflicted with knife injury on the person of the deceased in the CCTV footage. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the ma- terial available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and also considering the statement of PW-1 & PW-2 as well as recovery of gold articles from the applicant (Ex.P-31) and looking to the seriousness of the offence(s) against the applicant, in our view, no case is made out for allowing this application for suspen- sion of sentence. 6. Hence, this suspension of sentence application is dismissed. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J GARIMA/GAURAV SHARMA/15