[2025:RJ-JP:41217] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.1094/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.352/2025 Pintu Urf Girdhari s/o Shri Sukhlal, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Dhob Police Station Vijirpur District Sawaimadhopur (Raj) (At Present Confined In District Jail Sawai Madhopur ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, Dy. GA-cum- PP Ms. Simran Bharti JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/10/2025 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in total four accused persons faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 368 and 376-D IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Learned counsel submits that the co-accused Daulat Ram and Bharat have been acquitted from all the charges, but the appellant along-with co-accused Jeetu @ Jitendra were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Learned counsel submits that the sentence of the co-accused Jeetu @ Jitendra has already been suspended by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.05.2025 and case of the appellant is at par with him, so the same indulgence be granted to the appellant as well. Learned counsel submits that appellant was on bail during trial as well and since the hearing/disposal of the [2025:RJ-JP:41217] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1094/2025] instant appeal is bound to take its own time, therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant be suspended till disposal of the appeal. 2. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant oppose the prayer made by counsel for the appellant. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the appellant and looking to the fact that appellant along-with Jeetu @ Jitendra have been convicted for the above stated offence and both of them have sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of the co-accused Jeetu @ Jitendra has already been suspended by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.05.2025 with the following observations:- “5. On the basis of report Ex.P-4 submitted by PW-3 (father of victim) on 23.11.2017 about elopement/kidnapping of his daughter on enticement of Daulatram and Bharat Yadav, FIR No.102/2017 was registered at P.S. Piloda, Sawaimadhopur on 23.11.2017 under Section 363 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. During investigation, statement of victim was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and further test identification parade was conducted. The victim was medically examined. Police has filed charge-sheet against Bharat and Daulatram under Sections 366 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act after their arrest but against Pintu and Jeetu under Sections 376D, 368 IPC under Section 299 Cr.P.C. as both were absconding. After committal of case and surrender by accused, the trial court has framed charge under Sections 366 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act against Daulatram and Bharat Yadav but later against Pintu and Jeetu under Sections 368 and 376D IPC. Total 20 witnesses were examined and 22 documents [2025:RJ-JP:41217] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1094/2025] were exhibited by prosecution. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they have not submitted any defence evidence. 6. After considering the entire material on record, learned trial court has acquitted Daulatram and Bharat Yadav but convicted Jeetu and Pintu under Section 376 IPC and awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of ₹50,000/-. 7. Admittedly, the victim is an adult female and both of accused were acquitted from charge under Section 368 IPC. We have considered cross-examination of PW-1 recorded on 20.10.2022. We have also considered statement of PW-2 Vishal and PW-9 Dr. Manisha Goyal. Also considered statement of other witnesses. 8. Appellant was released on bail in pursuant to order dated 04.11.2022 in Second Bail Application No.16274/2022. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case but having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to release appellant on bail.” 5. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter and looking to the fact that the case of the petitioner is at par with the case of co-accused Jeetu @ Jitendra and looking to the fact that the appellant was on bail during trial and now he has been in custody from the date of his arrest, and also considering the fact that hearing/disposal of the instant appeal is bound to take its own time, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the instant case is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant. 6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed by the appellant under Section 430 BNSS is allowed and the sentence awarded by the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act cases Swaimadhopur in Sessions Case No.3/2018 against the appellant- Pintu Urf Girdhari s/o Shri Sukhlal shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, subject to the condition that the appellant shall deposit the fine amount, as imposed by the [2025:RJ-JP:41217] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1094/2025] Trial Court and he shall be released on bail provided he executes a personal bond for the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for appearance before this Court on 10.11.2025 and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That he shall appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the appellant changes his place of residence and mobile number, he will give in writing his changed address and mobile number to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 4. Appellant shall deposit a fine amount as imposed by the learned trial Court. 5. In case the applicant-appellant is found involved in committing and repeating the same offence again, the State/complainant would be at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail. 7. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused- appellant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Such Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. 8. In case the said accused-appellant does not appear before the trial court and commit any default, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/117