[2025:RJ-JP:10755-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Second Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2394/2024 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.45/2022 Jeetu @ Jitendra @ Laden S/o Shri Deshraj, R/o Milkipura, Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Shyalavas Dausa) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through its Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary, GA-cum-AAG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 10/03/2025 1. Heard on Second Application for Suspension of Sentence and grant of bail. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that though earlier application was rejected by this Court on 21.09.2023, almost one and a half year has elapsed by now and the applicant has undergone imprisonment of 8 years, 3 months and 4 days with benefit of remission as on 06.02.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant relying upon orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Shaukeen Vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2024 Supreme Online (SC) 992 and Aman Vs. State of Haryana, 2025 Supreme Online (SC) 1635, would submit that in those cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was [2025:RJ-JP:10755-DB] (2 of 2) [SOSA-2394/2024] pleased to suspend the sentence, taking into consideration that the appellants therein had undergone substantial part of the sentence awarded to them. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the prayer and submits that the application was earlier considered on merits and the same was rejected. 5. The applicant in the present case has been awarded life sentence and it is not a case of award of minimum of sentence of 10 years. The orders which have been relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant were those where the sentence of 10 years was imposed. 6. We also do not find any mitigating circumstance in the case to warrant indulgence when the first application for suspension of sentence has been rejected on merits. 7. It is not a case where the applicant has undergone the minimum sentence period. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is rejected. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT-RAHUL/30