[2025:RJ-JP:39579] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 271/2025 Mukesh Lodha S/o Radheyshyam, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Near Girls School Kunhadi Currently H N 6 Laxman Vihar, Police Station Kunhadi Kota (Presently The Accused Appellant Is Confined In Central Jail Kota) ----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 131/2025 Lokesh Nayak S/o Chiranjilal Nayak, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Jaula, Police Station Chauth Ka Barwada District Sawai Madhopur Presently Tenant Of Rakesh Meena Ka Makan, Near Shishu Niketan School Krishna Vihar, Police Station Kunhadi Kota (Presently Confined In Central Jail Kota) ----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan with Ms. Misha Sharma and Mr. Deependra Rathore Mr. Gourav Sharma and Mr. Pankaj Sharma for Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 25/09/2025 1. The appellants have been convicted by the learned Additional Session Judge, No.3, Kota, vide judgment dated 07.01.2025 in Sessions Case No.133/2024 for the offences under Sections 307, [2025:RJ-JP:39579] (2 of 3) [SOSA-271/2025] 326 and 324 of IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act and sentenced for five years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC, two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 of IPC and two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 4/25 of Arms Act respectively with default stipulation. 2. Being aggrieved the appellants have preferred these appeals. Pending disposal of the appeals, by way of present applications under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 the appellants seeks suspension of sentence and release on bail. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the trial court has convicted the accused-appellants on improper appreciation of the evidence. He further submitted that the judgment passed by the trial Court is not legally sustainable being contrary to the principles of law. He again submits that from the perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that the injured- Ramlakhan @ Lucky has made a compromise with all the accused- appellants. It is also admitted by the injured in his testimony that he did not know the name of accused but he has named them on the version given by the witness Adarsh Goswami @ Sikki. The prosecution has examined the Adarsh Goswami @ Sikki as PW6 and he has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution story. He further submits that out of the sentence period of five years, both the accused-appellants have undergone the custody period of one year nine months and hearing of the appeals are not likely to be concluded in near future. Therefore, the applications for suspension of sentence may be allowed. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the applications for suspension of sentence. [2025:RJ-JP:39579] (3 of 3) [SOSA-271/2025] 5. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor on the applications for suspension of sentence and perused the material available on record. 6. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of sentence undergone and the fact that disposal of the appeal is likely to take considerable time but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellants-Mukesh Lodha S/o Radheyshyam and Lokesh Nayak S/o Chiranjilal Nayak. 7. It is, therefore, ordered that the sentence of the appellants shall remain suspended till disposal of the appeals and they shall be released on bail, provided they furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each of them, to the satisfaction of the trial Court to the effect that they shall appear before this Court on 30.10.2025 and as and when called upon to do so. 8. The applications are accordingly disposed of. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Arun/20-21