[2025:RJ-JP:35459-DB] (1 of 3) [SOSA-2084/2024] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 2084/2024 in D. B. Criminal Appeal No.348/2022 Pawan Kumar S/o Virendra Kumar, R/o Dhikwad, Police Station Mandan, District Alwar Rajasthan (At Present In Central Jail Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajender Singh Rathore, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, Deputy Government Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 04/09/2025 1. Heard on second application for suspension of sentence. 2. Counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused- applicant is in custody for last seven years. Therefore, it is prayed that sentence imposed upon the applicant-accused be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:35459-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-2084/2024] 3. This Court dismissed the first application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of applicant-accused vide order dated 09.01.2024 which reads as under: “1. It is informed by learned Additional G.A. That complainant/victim has been intimated about filing of the appeal as well as application for suspension of sentence. Despite information, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant/victim. Report in this regard has also been submitted and the same is taken on record. Accused-applicant has preferred this application for suspension of sentence. 3. Heard on application for suspension of sentence. 4. It is contended by counsel for the applicant that applicant has remained in custody for a period of 6 years and 8 months. It is also contended that co- ccused in this case have been acquitted by the trial Court and disposal of appeal is bound to take time. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is contended that while milching cows were being transported, accused and other co- accused attacked the deceased. Accused has been identified by PW-1 Irshad. 6. We have considered the contentions. 7. Looking to the statements of PW-1, PW- 2, PW-3 and PW-39, recovery made at the instance of the accused and matter being related to mob lynching, we are not inclined to entertain the application for suspension of sentence. 8. The present application for suspension of sentence is accordingly, dismissed.” 4. Since the first application for suspension of sentence was decided on merits and there is no change in the circumstances except the period of custody undergone by the applicant-accused, in our considered view, no case is made out for allowing the second application for suspension of sentence. [2025:RJ-JP:35459-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-2084/2024] 5. Thus, in view of the order earlier passed by this Court on 09.01.2024, the second application for suspension of sentence is dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Tushar/18