[2025:RJ-JP:28242] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 1393/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1914/2025 Rajesh Kumar Bansal S/o Sh Sitaram Bansal, Then District Telcom Officer, Bsnl Bharatpur Rajasthan R/o Plot No. 49, Ward No. 38, Sector 9, In Front Of Municipal Office, Gandhi Nagar, Hanumangarh Junction Rajasthan Presently Joint Manager General Bsnl Jodhpur Sanchar Sadan Pnt. Colony ,shastri Ngar, Jodhpur Rajasthan (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus Central Brueau Of Investigation, Through Special Public Prosecutor ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 1394/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1915/2025 Madanlal Bansal Son Of Dayachand Bansal, Retired J.a.o., B.s.n.l., Bharatpur, Rajasthan, Resident Of House No. 171, Mukherjee Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Accused Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus C B I, Through Special Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan Mr. Hemant Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Chaturvedi, Special PP for CBI with Ms. Nandini Chaturvedi [2025:RJ-JP:28242] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1393/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 28/07/2025 1. These application for suspension of sentence are preferred by appellants - .Rajesh Kumar Bansal S/o Sh Sitaram Bansal, and Madanlal Bansal Son Of Dayachand Bansal, in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 09.07.2025 in Sessions Case No. 12/2018 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI cases, no.5, Jaipur Metropolitan-I whereby appellant- Rajesh Kumar Bansal was convicted for offence under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of PC Act and Section 120B IPC and appellant accused Madanlal Bansal was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 12 of PC Act and Section 120B of IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to each of the appellant is 4 years. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant Rajesh Kumar Bansal while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that appellant is innocent person and he is falsely implicated by complainant. Learned counsel has submitted that this appellant has neither made any demand nor any work was pending on date of trap by CBI. He further submitted that there is verification proceedings ensured before trap and verification prior to trap is not related to present petitioner. placed on record. He further submitted that for ongoing work, not related with current transaction, a committee was constituted in accordance with rules and the trial court has considered the same while considering the defence of this appellant accused but erroneously interpreted the evidence on record and convicted the present appellant accused. He also raised [2025:RJ-JP:28242] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1393/2025] criminal behaviour of complainant to secure tenders in the department and submited that department has registered a complaint against him. He further raised discrepancies and material contradictions and submitted that the present appellant accused has a strong case to succeed. He also submitted that this appellant accused was on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time. 3. Learned counsel appearing for appellant Madanlal Bansal has submitted that appellant is a retired person and he was convicted for abetment of offence though he is not connected with any work. He further submitted that the trap verification transcription clearly indicate that the complainant has allured the accused to become middle man in the transaction between the department and the complainant. At last, he submitted that this appellant was released on bail during trial. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI. He submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. 5. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of complaint of Sukhveer Singh Sinsinwar to S.P. CBI on 05.04.2017 about alleged demand of ₹1.2 lakhs for work already completed and payment already made on promise to pray bribe of ₹2 lacs and further causing hurdle in ongoing work, a verification was conducted. After the verification the CBI has led a trap and after trap proceedings registered a case no. RCJAI- 2017(A)0006 and after investigation, filed a charge-sheet against appellants. After framing charge, prosecution has examined 30 [2025:RJ-JP:28242] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1393/2025] witnesses and exhibited 66 documents and 27 articles. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence evidence of DW-1 Umesh Kumar Khichi was produced with 45 documents. Learned trial court has convicted appellants. 6. Both the appellants were extended bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. by the trial court as the CBI has failed to file charge- sheet on time. The disposal of appeal will take its own time. There is no criminal antecedent against the appellants and one of the appellant is already a retired official of the department. 7. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case, particularly grounds raised by learned counsel including the mala fides of complainant and further pressure created by complainant by making false allegation etc. but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case to enlarge appellant on bail. 8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellants can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellants accused- Rajesh Kumar Bansal S/o Sh Sitaram Bansal and Madanlal Bansal Son Of Dayachand Bansal, is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that they would executes 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 19.11.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- [2025:RJ-JP:28242] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1393/2025] 1. After release of appellant 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. That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 3. That if the applicant(s) 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. 4. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 5. 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 CHETNA BEHRANI /21-22(SOSA)