[2025:RJ-JP:1977-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2157/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 113/2024 1. Prahlad Son Of Sobhag, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Taar Ka Kheda Police Station Dablana District Bundi (Raj) (At Present Lodged In The Central Jail Kota) 2. Devkaran Alias Foru Son Of Sobhag, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Taar Ka Kheda Police Station Dablana District Bundi (Raj) (At Present Lodged In The Central Jail Kota) 3. Shankarlal Son Of Chaturbhuj, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Ambedkar Nagar, Keshorai Patan District Bundi (At Present Lodged In The Central Jail Kota) ----Accused-Applicants Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg For State For Complainant : : Mr. Amit Punia, Addl. G.A. Mr. Himanshu Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 15/01/2025 1. Accused-applicants have preferred this application for suspension of sentence. 2. Heard on application for suspension of sentence. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-applicants that the case rests on circumstantial evidence, there is no last seen witness, Safi which is said to have been recovered from the accused-applicants, was recovered from the place of occurance as [2025:RJ-JP:1977-DB] (2 of 2) [SOSA-2157/2024] per the statement of witness. It is also contended that the Investigating Officer has admitted in his cross-examination that there was no evidence to establish that the accused-applicants were present at the place of occurrence. It is further contended that the accused-applicants have remained in custody for a period of two years & nine months. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the present application for suspension of sentence. 5. We have considered the contentions. 6. Taking note of the fact that the accused-applicants have remained in custody for a period of two years & nine months; there is no last seen witness and the Investigating Officer himself has admitted that there is no evidence to establish that they were present at the place of occurrence; hence, we deem it proper to allow the present application for suspension of sentence. 7. Accordingly, the present application for suspension of sentence is allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-applicants in Sessions Case No.198/2022 shall remain suspended if the accused-applicants furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court to the effect that they shall appear before this Court as and when called upon to do so. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J LAKSHYA-DAKSH/69