[2025:RJ-JP:16390] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 616/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 745/2025 Mukhraj Meena Son Of Shri Ramkesh, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Badramsar Tehsil Gangapur City District Sawai Madhopur (Raj) Presently Junior Engineer Jaipur Discom Machadi District Alwar (Raj) (Presently The Accused Appellant Is Confined In District Jail Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 604/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 723/2025 Lalaram Saini Son Of Shri Balaram, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Chunni Ka Kuan, Malibas, Tan Rajpura Chhota Tehsil Raini, District Alwar Earlier Working As Lineman Jaipur Discom Machadi District Alwar (Raj) (Presently Confined In District Jail Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Mr. Hari Krishna Sharma, Mr. Ravindra Mavliya & Ms. Chanchal Mr. Umesh Vyas Mr. Aayush Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP [2025:RJ-JP:16390] (2 of 4) [SOSA-616/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 17/04/2025 1. These SOS applications were preferred by petitioners- Mukhraj Meena and Lalaram Saini in pending appeals filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.03.2025 in sessions case no. 2/2015 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Alwar wherein the petitioners accused were convicted under Sections 7 and 13(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act and also under Section 120-B of IPC. The maximum punishment awarded to each of the appellants is four years. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that neither there was a demand nor a work was pending with petitioner. He also submits that trial court has convicted both the petitioners on surmises and conjectures as there was no direct evidence on record. At last, he submitted that the appellants accused have strong case to succeed and they were on bail during trial. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submitted custody certificates and same are taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of complaint by Sanjay Kumar Sharma, ACB post Alwar after verification OF demand of bribe, a trap was organized wherein Lalaram allegedly received bribe on behalf of [2025:RJ-JP:16390] (3 of 4) [SOSA-616/2025] Mukhraj. After the trap proceedings, FIR no. 314/2014 dated 05.09.2014 was registered at ACB, Jaipur. After investigation, ACB has filed charge-sheet against both the petitioners. During trial, 19 witnesses were examined and 51 documents were exhibited by the prosecution. Both the petitioners were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Defence witness DW-1 Prem Singh was examined in defence. Learned trial court after concluding the trial has convicted and sentenced both the appellants. 6. Having considered the statement of complainant Sanjay Kumar Sharma examined as PW-12 and independent witness PW- 7 Surendra Nath and PW-15 Suresh Chand Gupta and also other material witnesses as referred by learned trial court, 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- Mukhraj Meena Son Of Shri Ramkesh, Lalaram Saini Son Of Shri Balaram 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 29.07.2025 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. [2025:RJ-JP:16390] (4 of 4) [SOSA-616/2025] 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 his/her/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. 7. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 8. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /44-45