[2025:RJ-JP:42287-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc. IInd Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 973/2025 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.380/2018 Shivraj S/o Madholal, Aged About 99 Years, R/o Gamachh P.S. K Patan District Bundi (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota) ----Accused-Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, Additional Government Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 15/10/2025 1. This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the accused-applicant along with the appeal. 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act. 3. Counsel for the accused-applicant has annexed the certificate under Rule 311 (3) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules to the effect that accused-applicant is in judicial custody. Counsel further submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in [2025:RJ-JP:42287-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-973/2025] this matter and the accused-applicant has already served the sentence for a period of more than ten years and the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future. Therefore, he prayed that sentence awarded to the accused-applicant may be suspended and he be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 4. Counsel for the accused-applicant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Saudan Singh versus The State of Uttar Pradesh’, (Criminal Appeal No.308/2022 (SLP (Crl.) No.4633/2021), decided on 25.02.2022, wherein it is held as under: “The second category of cases can be one where the person has served out more than 10 years of sentence. In these cases also at one go bail can be granted unless there are any extenuating circumstances against him.” 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the application for suspension of sentence and submits that the complainant/victim has duly been informed about filing of the present case through the concerned SHO. Despite intimation, no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant/victim to oppose this application for suspension of sentence. 6. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, and also considering the fact that the accused-applicant has already served the sentence for a period of more than ten years and hearing of appeal may take long time and also in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of [2025:RJ-JP:42287-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-973/2025] ‘Saudan Singh’ (supra), we deem it just and proper to allow this criminal miscellaneous suspension of sentence application. 8. In that view of the matter, this criminal miscellaneous suspension of sentence application is allowed and it is ordered that execution of sentence awarded to the accused-applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of the criminal appeal and the accused-applicant be admitted to bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before this Court on 01.12.2025 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court through e-mail/fax for necessary compliance. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Mohita /20