[2025:RJ-JP:17027] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2397/2024 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.3376/2024 1. Deendayal Son Of Ramswaroop, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Khediramla Police Station Mehandipur Balaji District Dausa (Raj) (At Present In District Jail, Dausa) 2. Prem Singh Son Of Ramswaroop, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Khediramla Polilce Station Mehandipur Balaji District Dausa (Raj) (At Present In District Jail, Dausa) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Bagadia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 22/04/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellants-Deendayal Son Of Ramswaroop and Prem Singh Son Of Ramswaroop aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 07.12.2024 in Sessions Case B.T. No.25/2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikrai, Dausa whereby appellant Deendayal was convicted for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 326 and 307 IPC and appellant Prem Singh was convicted for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324, 326/149 and 307/149 IPC and sentenced accordingly. [2025:RJ-JP:17027] (2 of 4) [SOSA-2397/2024] 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that they are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated at behest of complainant party. He further submitted that there was a cross- case of the incident but ignoring the evidence of DW-1, the appellants were convicted. He also submitted that complainant and accused belongs to same family and there is a property dispute between them. He submits that it is a case of free fight but the trial court without considering the fact that who were aggressors, has convicted the appellants. He also referred the contradictions and discrepancies in the statement of injured and other eye-witnesses and submitted that the trial court has ignored them and if these contradictions were considered then these are sufficient to dent the case of prosecution. He also referred evidence relating to property dispute and submitted that in the instant case there was a delay of four days in registration of case and the trial court has not considered basic principle of law while convicting the appellants. At last, he submitted that both the appellants were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of report dated 13.05.2017 filed by Rameshwar in Police Station Mehandipur Balaji about incident of assault on 09.05.2017, FIR No.75/2017 under Sections 143, 323, 458 and 354 IPC was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed [2025:RJ-JP:17027] (3 of 4) [SOSA-2397/2024] against Deen Dayal, Prem Singh and Shiv Singh under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 326, 458, 459, 354 and 307 IPC. After framing charge, 20 witnesses were examined and 25 documents were exhibited. The accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and one witness DW-1 Deen Dayal was examined as defence witness whereas 26 documents were exhibited. The trial court has exhibited documents C1 to C5. After considering the material on record, accused Deen Dayal was convicted under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 326 and 307 IPC whereas Prem Singh was convicted under Sections 147, 148, 323/149. 324, 326/149 and 304/149 IPC. Accused Shiv Singh was convicted under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 326/149 and 307/149 IPC but he absconded when the matter was taken up for awarding of sentence. 6. We have considered the statement of injured PW_1 and also of PW-2 to PW-5, PW-6 Dr. Rohit, PW-9 Dr. Sugan Lal and PW-11. Also considered the procedure adopted by the trial court wherein the trial court has exhibited certain documents as Court documents because same were not tendered in evidence by the prosecution. Accused Prem Singh was convicted with aid of Section 149 IPC. 7. Both the appellants were on bail during trial and at this stage it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case but having considered the fact that disposal of appeal will take its own time and multiple cases were pending between both the parties, it is appropriate to release appellants 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 [2025:RJ-JP:17027] (4 of 4) [SOSA-2397/2024] enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellants accused-Deendayal Son Of Ramswaroop and Prem Singh Son Of Ramswaroop is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of them 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 31.07.2025 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 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 applicants 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 addresses, 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 PREETI VALECHA /20