[2025:RJ-JP:42247] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1879/2025 IN S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1940/2024 Rahul Jedia S/o. Late Shri Lalchand, Aged About 19 Years, Resi- dent Of 523, Shivaji Nagar, Kacchi Basti Police Station Bhatta Basti Jaipur (Accused Appellants Confined At Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Swanee Kanwar for Ms. Sonial Gill For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/10/2025 1. The appellant herein has been convicted under Sections 323, 341, 324 & 307 of IPC vide judgment dated 01.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.09, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (Raj.) in Sessions Case No.22/2021 (CIS No.392/2021) and has been sentenced to maximum punishment of eight years. 2. The first application for suspension of execution of sentence filed on behalf of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 11.09.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial Court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant as [2025:RJ-JP:42247] (2 of 3) [SOSA-1879/2025] mentioned above. Learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in right and correct perspective. It is submitted that there are series of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it has been alleged that if accused has been sentenced for fixed term, his application for suspension of execution of sentence should be considered liberally. Counsel further submits that more than a year has been passed after dismissal of first application for suspension of execution of sentence and appeal has not been having decided, thus this second application for suspension of execution of sentence may be considered liberally and there is no immediate prospect of hearing and disposal of the appeal in near future. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. He submits the first application for suspension of execution of sentence was dismissed on merits and thereafter, nothing substantial change has occasioned. It is submitted that there is specific allegation against the appellant of causing life threatening injury on the stomach of the injured which is corroborated by the medical evidence. 5. The first application for suspension of execution of sentence was dismissed on merits and thereafter, nothing substantial change has occasioned. It also appears from the record that neither efforts made by the appellant-applicant to get listed appeal for final hearing nor the matter was mentioned before the concerned Bench having roster. In these circumstances, merely on the basis of period of incarceration, the appellant does not deserve [2025:RJ-JP:42247] (3 of 3) [SOSA-1879/2025] indulgence of bail. Thus, upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature and gravity of offence, I do not find any good ground so as to accept the instant application for SOS. 6. Accordingly, this second application for suspension of execution of sentence stands dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /56