[2025:RJ-JP:38516-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal 2nd Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2436/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.204/2022 Idreish @ Kala S/o Joru Khan, Resident Khimi Khora, Police Station Rajgarh, District Alwar Rajasthan (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail, Alwar) ----Applicant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Victim, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondents For Applicant(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, Addl. GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 19/09/2025 1. This second suspension of sentence application has been filed by the accused-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 the sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded to the applicant under Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act and he in judicial custody. Counsel submits that the accused-applicant has falsely been involved in the case. Counsel further submits that the applicant has served the sentence for more than six years. Counsel also submits that hearing of the appeal may take a long [2025:RJ-JP:38516-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-2436/2024] time. Therefore, he prayed that sentence awarded to the accused- applicant may be suspended and the accused-applicant be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the present second suspension of sentence application and submits that first suspension of sentence application filed on behalf of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 16.04.2023, which reads as under:- “1. Accused-appellant has preferred this application for suspension of sentence. 2. Heard on application for suspension of sentence. 3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that there is delay in lodging of FIR. It is also contended that there was some dispute relating to mortgage of property and for that reason accused has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further contended that victim in her initial statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-6) levelled allegations against three (2 of 2) [SOSA-967/2022] persons, however, in the statement recorded thereafter (Ex.P-3), she levelled allegations against three persons, wherein one person was substituted and in place of ‘Joru’ name of ‘Nawab’ was added. It is contended that appellant has remained in custody for a period of four years. Disposal of appeal is bound to take time. 4. Learned Assistant Govt. Advocate has opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is contended that the matter pertains to gang rape. It is also contended that two male DNA were obtained from the underwear of the victim. It is [2025:RJ-JP:38516-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-2436/2024] further contended that appellant refused to give his sample for DNA analysis, in spite of there being Court’s order. 5. We have considered the contentions. 6. Considering the statements of PW.1 & PW.2 and taking note of the fact that there is specific allegation against the present appellant in all the versions given by the victim right from Ex.P-6, Ex.P-3 & Court statement; that appellant refused to give his sample for DNA analysis inspite of Court’s order and two male DNA were obtained from the underwear of the victim, we are not inclined to entertain the application for suspension of sentence. 7. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application is accordingly, dismissed.” 4. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and also considering the fact that there is no change in the circumstances after dismissal of first suspension of sentence application except the period of custody, no case is made out to allow the second suspension of sentence application. 6. Hence, the second suspension of sentence application stands dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J PAYAL DHAWAN /18