[2025:RJ-JP:24353] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 1068/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1412/2025 1. Ramkesh @ Fattal Son Of Shri Pyarelal, Years, Resident Of Badauli Police Station Wazirpur District Sawai Madhopur (Raj) (Presently Accused Appellant is Confined At Central Jail, Sewar Bharatpur) 2. Omprakash @ Prakash Son Of Shri Ramsingh, Resident Of Badauli Police Station Wazirpur District Sawai Madhopur (Raj) (Presently Accused Appellant is Confined At Central Jail, Sewar Bharatpur) 3. Mukesh Son Of Shri Shyoram, Resident Of Badauli Police Station Wazirpur District Sawai Madhopur (Raj) (Presently Accused Appellant is Confined At Central Jail, Sewar Bharatpur) 4. Mansingh Son Of Shri Shyoram, Resident Of Badauli Police Station Wazirpur District Sawai Madhopur (Raj) (Presently Accused Appellant is Confined At Central Jail, Sewar Bharatpur) 5. Rishipal Son Of Shri Ramswaroop, Resident Of Badauli Police Station Wazirpur District Sawai Madhopur (Raj) (Presently Accused Appellant is Confined At Central Jail, Sewar Bharatpur) 6. Nemi @ Nemichand Son Of Shri Ramsingh, Resident Of Badauli Police Station Wazirpur District Sawai Madhopur (Raj) (Presently Accused Appellant is Confined At Central Jail, Sewar Bharatpur) 7. Munna Son Of Shri Shyoram, Resident Of Badauli Police Station Wazirpur District Sawai Madhopur (Raj) (Presently Accused Appellant Are Confined is Central Jail, Sewar Bharatpur) 8. Harkesh Son Of Shri Ghamandi, Resident Of Badauli Police Station Wazirpur District Sawai Madhopur (Raj) (Presently Accused Appellant is Confined At Central Jail, Sewar Bharatpur) ----Petitioners [2025:RJ-JP:24353] (2 of 6) [SOSA-1068/2025] 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 Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 02/07/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellants - Ramkesh @ Fattal Son Of Shri Pyarelal,, Omprakash @ Prakash Son Of Shri Ramsingh, Mukesh Son Of Shri Shyoram, Mansingh Son Of Shri Shyoram, Rishipal Son Of Shri Ramswaroop, Nemi @ Nemichand Son Of Shri Ramsingh, Munna Son Of Shri Shyoram and Harkesh Son Of Shri Ghamandi, in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 16.05.2025 in Sessions Case No. 02/2022 (CIS no. 64/2015) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge no.2, Gangapur City whereby appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 148, 460 and 323/149 of IPC and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that initially FIR was registered under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 452 IPC but after investigation police has filed a charge-sheet under Sections 147, 323, 341, 325 and 459 IPC. He also submitted that the trial court without taking note of material forwarded by police has framed charges under [2025:RJ-JP:24353] (3 of 6) [SOSA-1068/2025] Sections 148, 460/149 and 323/149 IPC. Learned counsel has further submitted that arising out of same incident a cross case was also registered by present appellants against the complainant party wherein also a charge-sheet has been filed. Learned counsel further referred the facts and submitted that both the parties are neighbours and are having a previous animosity as there is pending civil litigation between them. He further submitted that out of 10 persons charged two have expired and allegation of causing grievous hurt was upon Rukma and not upon any of present appellant. He also submitted that the injured were examined by PW-5 Dr. Ramkhiladi Meena and while examining injured Ram Sahai he found that injury no.6 and 7 were infact one injury and it is caused upon zygomatic region. He further submitted that PW-5 is simple medical officer and having no specialisation as radiologist. He further referred the cross- examination of PW-15 Ramveer Singh (IO) and submitted that no case under Section 460 IPC is made out from the material collected during investigation. He further referred Ex. D/3 site plan and submitted that the place of incident is an open place and conviction under Section 460 is contrary to evidence and documents on record. He further referred cross-examination of PW-1 Sukhlal and submitted that there is a difference in place of incident and the trial court has committed serious error while ignoring the material contradictions. At last, he submitted that the appellants accused were on bail during trial and they have not misused the liberty granted to them and the disposal of appeal will take its own time. [2025:RJ-JP:24353] (4 of 6) [SOSA-1068/2025] 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant while relying upon evidence of prosecution and reasons for conviction has submitted that there were two incidents and in present case the present appellants armed with deadly weapons have committed lurking house trespass and assaulted several persons who sustained injuries. He further referred judgment dated 16.05.2025 in cross case tried as sessions case no. 56/2016 (68/2021) and submitted that both the accused Ramjeet and Pintu@ Sunil were acquitted. At last, he submitted that the appellants have committed a serious offence and the trial court has convicted them on the basis of evidence, therefore, they are not entitled to be released on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of report, Ex.P-1 about incident of 29.06.2015 filed by PW-1 Sukhlal about assault by appellants accused and other persons, FIR No. 97/2015 at P.S. Wazirpur, Dist. Sawai Madhopur under Sections 143, 341, 323, 452 IPC. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against 10 persons. After framing charge, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but they have not submitted any defence evidence but exhibited 14 documents. During trial two accused Rukma and Ram Singh have expired but remaining eight were convicted and sentenced. The maximum sentence awarded is seven years under Section 460 of IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:24353] (5 of 6) [SOSA-1068/2025] 6. A perusal of judgment dated 16.05.2025 in cross case arising out of FIR no. 104/2015 indicate that both the accused Ramjeet and Pintu were acquitted from charge under Sections 341, 323 and 34 IPC. We have considered the evidence of injured and other prosecution witnesses including PW-5 Dr. Ram Khiladi. These appellants accused were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time. No record about criminal antecedents is filed. 7. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case, 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, 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- Ramkesh @ Fattal Son Of Shri Pyarelal,, Omprakash @ Prakash Son Of Shri Ramsingh, Mukesh Son Of Shri Shyoram, Mansingh Son Of Shri Shyoram, Rishipal Son Of Shri Ramswaroop, Nemi @ Nemichand Son Of Shri Ramsingh, Munna Son Of Shri Shyoram and Harkesh Son Of Shri Ghamandi, 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 17.10.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. After release of appellant on bail, they will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found [2025:RJ-JP:24353] (6 of 6) [SOSA-1068/2025] that he is 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. 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 /46(SOSA)