[2025:RJ-JP:35449-DB] (1 of 2) [SOSA-1994/2024] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 1994/2024 in D. B. Criminal Appeal No.212/2023 Pankaj Kumar Alias Prem Son Of Ramkrapal, R/o Chandupura, Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan.(At Present Confined In District Jail, Baran) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Additional Government Advocate. Mr. Dharmendra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Kapil Gupta, Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 04/09/2025 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 for a period exceeding six years. 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 applicant-accused along with other co-accused persons, by a [2025:RJ-JP:35449-DB] (2 of 2) [SOSA-1994/2024] reasoned order dated 26.09.2023. The said order reads, inter alia, as follows: “1. Accused-applicants have preferred this application for suspension of sentence. 2. Heard on application for suspension of sentence. 3. It is contended by counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants that no sign of injuries were found on the person of the victim and it was a case of consent rather than of gang rape. 4. Learned Asstt. Govt. Adv. as well as counsel appearing for the complainant/victim have opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is contended that allegation is against four persons of forcefully taking away the girl in a car and raping her. It is also contended that DNA report is matching and semen was found on the seat of the car as well as on the clothes of the victim and accused-applicants. 5. We have considered the contentions. 6. Considering the age and statement of the victim; also considering the DNA report, we are not inclined to entertain the application for suspension of sentence. 7. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is 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 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 26.09.2023, the present (second) application for suspension of sentence stands dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Tushar/16