[2025:RJ-JP:21226] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1968/2024 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2915/2024 Ramlakhan Son Of Bhagmal Alias Pilli, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village Paindka, Police Station Nagar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (Accused Appellant Is In District Jail, Alwar) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1967/2024 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2914/2024 Churari Son Of Ami Chand, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Dhabara, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura (U.p.) (Accused Appellants Are In District Jail, Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Swati Sharma for Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 19/05/2025 1. These two SOS applications were preferred by applicants- accused Ramlakhan S/o Bhagmal Alias Pilli and Churari S/o [2025:RJ-JP:21226] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1968/2024] Ami Chand in pending appeals filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.10.2024 in Sessions Case No.44/2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Laxamgarh, District Alwar, whereby the applicants-accused Churari and Ramlakhan were convicted under Sections 395 and 412 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and 7 years respectively along with fine. 2. Learned counsel for applicants submits that applicants are innocents persons and they were falsely implicated by police. She further submitted that report Ex.P-18 was registered against the unnamed persons, and without any test identification parade, both the applicants were forwarded to face trial for offence under Sections 395 and 412 IPC. She further submitted that the Trial Court has convicted both the applicants for not only for offence of dacoity but also as receiver of stolen property. She further submitted that the offence was committed in 2008, whereas these applicants were charged in 2011 without any evidence. She further submitted that from one accused (Churari), there was recovery of cash, but same is not identifiable, whereas from another accused, there was recovery of silver anklet and kankati. She referred the discrepancies in the statement of witnesses and submitted that these applicants were on bail during trial and there is no criminal antecedents against the applicants and the disposal of appeal will take its own time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submitted custody certificate, but submitted that till date no criminal antecedents were reported by police [2025:RJ-JP:21226] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1968/2024] against them. He also placed reliance upon reply submitted by State. 4. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On basis of report Ex.P-18 about dacoity by 7-8 unknown dacoits, in the night of 30th-31st March, 2008 FIR No.98/2008 was registered at P.S. Laxmangarh, District Alwar, and police has filed charge-sheet against five persons under Sections 395 and 412 IPC. After framing the charge, the prosecution has examined 26 witnesses and exhibited 51 documents along with 6 articles. The applicants-accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they have not submitted any defence evidence. The Trial Court has convicted both the applicants under Sections 395 and 412 IPC. 6. Both the applicant-accused were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time and there is no criminal antecedents reported by the prosecution. We have considered the evidence of prosecution as referred by learned counsel for applicants. The grounds raised by learned counsel for applicants can be considered at the time of final adjudication and not now. We have considered the recovery related evidence and also the deposition of witnesses, particularly cross-examination, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is appropriate to allow SOS applications. 7. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the suspension of sentence applications are hereby allowed and it is ordered that sentence of applicants-accused Ramlakhan S/o Bhagmal Alias Pilli and Churari S/o Ami Chand are suspended till disposal of [2025:RJ-JP:21226] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1968/2024] appeal with the condition that each of them would execute a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on 29.08.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That the appellants accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and not repeat crime of any nature during period of suspension of sentence/bail. 2. That the appellants will appear before the Trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 3. That if the appellants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 4. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 8. In case, the applicants have violated any condition then the order of suspension of sentence shall be recalled and cancelled. 9. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 10. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /16-17