[2025:RJ-JP:50008] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. (SOS) Application No.552/2025 In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2164/2025 Yogendra Soni S/o Shri Shiv Prakash Soni, Resident Of Shiv Sadan, Lodha Colonly, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj) (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p 2. Rameshwarlal Baldua S/o Shri Nathmal Baldua, Resident Of 4/6, Saket Nagar, Housing Board Beawar, District Ajmer, (Raj) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agrawal For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Vijay Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 09/12/2025 1. Heard on the application (IA No.883/2025) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. Heard on the application (IA No.1/2025) for taking the legal representative on record. 4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. 5. Amended cause-title filed by the petitioner, which is taken on record. [2025:RJ-JP:50008] (2 of 3) [SOSR-552/2025] 6. This revision petition has been filed under Section 438 BNSS against the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by Additional District and Session Judge No.3, Beawar in Cr. Appeal No.60/2017 whereby he confirmed the judgment dated 06.06.2017 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) Beawar in Criminal Regular Case No. 2222/2015 has been affirmed by which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. 7. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant on the application for suspension of sentence and perused the material available on record. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the entire amount of ₹2,50,000/–, which had been imposed as a fine and corresponds to the full amount mentioned in the cheque has been paid to the complainant. Therefore, the application for suspension of sentence may be allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the complainant has not disputed this fact and has stated that the parties have arrived at a compromise, and he has no objection to the grant of bail. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence. 11. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of sentence awarded and the fact that disposal of the revision is likely to take considerable time but [2025:RJ-JP:50008] (3 of 3) [SOSR-552/2025] without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of the petitioner-Yogendra Soni S/o Shri Shiv Prakash Soni. 12. It is, therefore, ordered that the sentence of the petitioner shall remain suspended till disposal of the revision and he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court to the effect that he shall appear before this Court on 12.01.2026 and as and when called upon to do so. 13. The application is accordingly disposed of. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Arun/58