[2025:RJ-JP:25974] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 862/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1078/2025 1. Suraj Singh Son Of Pitam Singh, R/o Khedi Devi Singh Police Station Nadbai District Bharatpur (Raj) (Presently Accused Appellant Confined At Central Jail Bharatpur) 2. Lokendra Singh Son Of Pitam Singh, R/o Khedi Devi Singh Police Station Nadbai District Bharatpur (Raj) (Presently Accused Appellant Confined At Central Jail Bharatpur) ----Petitioners Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ved Prakash Sogarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Garg Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 11/07/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellants - Suraj Singh Son Of Pitam Singh and Lokendra Singh Son Of Pitam Singh in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 21.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.06/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Bharatpur whereby appellant Suraj Singh was convicted for offence under Sections 323, 307 rws 34 IPC and 3/25 of Arms Act IPC and Lokendra was convicted under Sections 323, 307 rws 34 IPC sentenced accordingly. [2025:RJ-JP:25974] (2 of 5) [SOSA-862/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that appellants are innocent persons and falsely implicated by complainant party due to previous animosity between them. He further referred criminal antecedents of complainant party and submitted that 14 cases were registered against Uday, 6 against Vinod son of Uday and 4 against Neelam @ Dhruv Singh son of Uday Singh. He further submitted that there is allegation of firing and medical report clearly suggest that there is no injury on any vital part. He further submitted that the allegations in the report clearly suggest that Dhruv Singh was driving tractor at the time of alleged fire but police has not seized the tractor, used by injured. He also referred the site plan and shoddy investigation and submitted that even police has not recovered any empty cartridge from the spot to clear doubts about the allegation of use of firearm. He also submitted that only eyewitness Ajit has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Learned counsel has further referred cross- examination of PW7 Dr. Bhagchand Meena and PW14 Dr. Ramesh and submitted that the injuries were neither dangerous to life nor opined as grievous. At last, he submitted that both the parties belong to same family and appellants were on bail during trial. He also submitted details of the criminal antecedents referred against the appellants, with copies of orders. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. He submitted custody certificates and same are taken on record. Learned counsel for complainant has referred criminal antecedents of both appellants and submitted that appellants have created terror [2025:RJ-JP:25974] (3 of 5) [SOSA-862/2025] among the general public. He also submitted that the trial court has referred evidence of PW-11 (IO) which indicated that due to fear of accused Suraj, no one came forward to depose against the appellants. He also submitted that if these appellants are released on bail then they may again indulge in criminal activities. 4. Heard learned counsel for parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of parchabayan, Ex.P-2 dated 26.07.2017 of PW-2 about assault on both the appellants with pistol and spade FIR No. 442/2017 at P.S. Nadbai, Dist. Bharatpur is registered. A copy of report recieved from P.S. Nadbai indicated that 14 criminal cases were registered against PW-5 Uday Singh, 4 against PW-2 Dhruv Singh (injured) and 6 against PW-4 Vinod (eye-witness). All three are from same family and learned Public Prosecutor has also filed list indicating that 12 cases were registered against Lokendra and 10 against Suraj. The details submitted by learned counsel for appellants indicated that 6 cases were disposed of against Suraj and out of which 5 resulted into acquittal. Similarly FIR No.13/2017 P.S. Jaisalmer is wrong entry but in FIR No.579/2016 P.S. Nadbai not mentioned in the list. The appellant Suraj was acquitted in remaining three cases and two cases are pending before the trial court whereas the third case has resulted in conviction and present appeal arises out of FIR No.442/2017. The record relating to Lokendra Suggested that 6 cases out of 11 were disposed of and out of which 4 resulted into acquittal and in 2 cases granted benefit of probation. In remaining 5 cases, one FIR No.442/2017 is present case whereas two cases are pending [2025:RJ-JP:25974] (4 of 5) [SOSA-862/2025] before the trial court and in two cases, no charge-sheet has been filed. 6. Aforesaid details indicated that two criminal cases are pending against Suraj and Lokendra before the trial court whereas in two criminal cases registered at P.S. Nadbai final report has not been filed against Lokendra. Learned counsel for complainant has filed orderhseet relating to criminal case No. 290/2020 (arising out of Fir No.100/2019 P.S. Nadbai) shown in the list and submitted that both the accused Suraj and Lokendra were summoned through warrant of arrest and now next date is 09.09.2025. The order-sheet indicated that on 19.10.2020 charge-sheet has been filed (during COVID-19) under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC and in absence of accused, delay was condoned and bail bond executed before police were forfeited. 7. Having considered the entire material on record and also fact that now only two cases are pending, therefore it is appropriate to allow SOS application. Both the accused were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time. 8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellant accused- Suraj Singh Son Of Pitam Singh and Lokendra Singh Son Of Pitam Singh is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of them would execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on [2025:RJ-JP:25974] (5 of 5) [SOSA-862/2025] 01.11.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. After release of appellants on bail, they will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that they are involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled. 2. The appellant(s) shall mark their attendance in the P.S. Nadbai, Dist. Bharatpur on 1st Monday of every month till disposal of appeal. 3. That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 4. That if the applicants changes the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 5. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 6. In case, the applicant has violated any condition, then the order of SOS shall be recalled and cancelled. 9. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 10. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /45