[2025:RJ-JP:25843] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 262/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.326/2025 1. Jugraj S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 35 Years 2. Dhanraj S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 33 Years 3. Satyanarayan S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 41 Years 4. Brijraj Singh S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Fadaniya Police Station Khanpur District Jhalawar (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota) ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Mr. Heramb Saraswat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 10/07/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by the appellants-applicants accused 1. Jugraj S/o Bhanwar Lal 2. Dhanraj S/o Bhanwar Lal 3. Satyanarayan S/o Bhanwar Lal and 4. Brijraj Singh S/o Mangi Lal (hereinafter referred to ‘the appellants’) in pending appeal aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 21.01.2025 in Sessions Case No.07/2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, whereby the appellants Jugraj, Dhanraj and Satyanarayan were convicted for offence [2025:RJ-JP:25843] (2 of 5) [SOSA-262/2025] under Sections 341, 323, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Brijraj under Sections 341, 323 and 307 of IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to each of petitioner is 7 years. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants while relying upon grounds of appeal submits that the appellants are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated in the matter by the complainant party. He further submits that due to a property dispute, these appellants were falsely arrayed as an accused and reason of dispute is only a long pending dispute. He further referred Ex.P-10 injury report of injured Sawaria and submitted that no injury was opined as dangerous to life. He also referred Ex.P-12 injury report of Deendayal (PW-10) and submitted that no injury was caused by any sharp edged weapon and all injuries upon both the injured were found to be caused by blunt object. He also submitted that there is recovery of a stick only and not a gandasi. He further referred statement of PW-10 Deen Dayal and PW-7 Dr. Sailendra Kumar Mehta and submitted that the discrepancies in the statement were not explained by prosecution. He further referred evidence of PW-4 Sawaria and eye-witness PW-11 Kalulal and submitted that the discrepancies were not considered by the trial Court. He further referred the evidence on record and submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that Brijraj Singh has used Gandasi to assault Deen Dayal. He further submitted that all these accused were on bail during trial and they have not misused the liberty granted to them and disposal of appeal will take its own time. [2025:RJ-JP:25843] (3 of 5) [SOSA-262/2025] 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificates and same are taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On basis of a report Ex. P-5 lodged by PW-4 Sawaria about assault by appellants accused and later with Deen Dayal and his father, FIR No.143/2021 was registered at Police Station Khanpur District Jhalawar under Section 341, 323, 325 and 307/34 IPC. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against the appellants accused. After framing the charge, the prosecution has examined 24 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC and they have not submitted any defence evidence but exhibited 4 documents. These appellants accused were convicted and maximum sentence awarded is 7 years. 6. The appellants accused Satyanarayan, Dhanraj and Brijraj were allowed bail by learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar on 19.07.2021 under Section 439 CrPC whereas appellant Jugraj was allowed bail by a Co-ordinate Bench on 15.07.2021 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.10083/2021. 7. We have considered injury reports of Sawaria Ex.P-10 and Deen Dayal Ex.P-12 and also evidence of PW-7 Dr. Sailendra Kumar Mehta who examined both the injuries and opined about the injuries. The injury No.1 upon Deen Dayal is a fracture in parietal bone but there is no opinion to show that same is dangerous to life. The X-Ray was conducted by PW-8 Dr. Bhupendra Golcha and prepared report exhibited X-Ray report as [2025:RJ-JP:25843] (4 of 5) [SOSA-262/2025] Ex.P-13. We have considered cross-examination of PW-4 Sawaria and PW-10 Deen Dayal and also considered evidence of PW-11 Kalu Lal as referred by learned counsel for the appellants. 8. Having considering the totality and facts and circumstances of the case and the disposal of appeal will take its own time and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of considered view that at this stage it is a fit case wherein appellants can be enlarged on bail. 9. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant suspension of sentence application is hereby allowed and it is ordered that sentence of appellants-applicants accused 1. Jugraj S/o Bhanwar Lal 2. Dhanraj S/o Bhanwar Lal 3. Satyanarayan S/o Bhanwar Lal and 4. Brijraj Singh S/o Mangi Lal is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of them would execute a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this Court on 01.11.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That the appellants accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and not repeat crime of any nature during period of suspension of sentence/bail. 2. That the appellants will appear before the Trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 3. That if the appellants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed [2025:RJ-JP:25843] (5 of 5) [SOSA-262/2025] address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 4. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address(s) to the trial Court. 10. In case, the applicants have violated any condition then the order of suspension of sentence shall be recalled and cancelled. 11. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 12. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/43