[2025:RJ-JP:17905] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1776/2024 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2628/2024 1. Hari S/o Shri Prabhu, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Beerbal Ka Beda Tan Kodapura PS Gadibajana District Bharatpur 2. Chandrapal S/o Prabhu, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Chahar Nagala PS Mangroi District Mathura at Present Gram Seupura PS Gadi Bajana District Bharatpur (Appellants Are Confined In Sevar (Central Jail) Bharatpur) ----Appellants Versus State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 28/04/2025 1. This suspension of sentence application was preferred on behalf of accused appellants-applicants (1) Hari S/o Shri Prabhu and (2) Chandrapal S/o Prabhu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellants’) in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.09.2024 in Sessions Case No.21/2019 (55/2018) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bayana, District Bharatpur whereby the accused appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 5 of the [2025:RJ-JP:17905] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1776/2024] Explosive Substances Act and they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 10 years with fine of ₹10,000/- each. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated by the complainant in the instant case. He also submits that the recovery of explosives from possession of accused appellants were not established beyond reasonable doubt but the trial Court has convicted the appellants accused under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. He submits that the explosive is used in digging the well in rural area and the same is not used for any purpose other than digging the well in rural area. He also submits that this type of explosive is normally used in small mining operations and police has not found any purpose other than explained by the appellants. He further referred the discrepancies and contradictions and submitted that the prosecution sanction itself is non application of mind and without going through the record the prosecution sanction was granted to prosecute the appellants. He also referred the cross-examination of other witnesses and submitted that no independent witness was procured for seizure of explosive from possession of the appellants. At last, he submitted that both the appellants were on bail during trial and they have not misused the liberty granted to them and disposal of appeal will take its own time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submits that reply has already been placed on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:17905] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1776/2024] 5. On 18.11.2016, PW-3 Shyamsundar, SHO Police Station Gadhi Baajna, District Bharatpur, intercepted motorcycle bearing number RJ05SU3269 and on search recovered a gunny bag from two persons on motorcycle containing explosive substance. Both the appellants were transporting explosive substance without any license. These explosive were manufactured by Rajasthan Explosives and Chemicals Ltd, Dholpur (Raj.). On basis of recovery, FIR No.93/2016 was registered at Police Station Gadhi Baajna, District Bharatpur. After investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against the appellants and prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC and they opted not to submit any defence evidence. Both the accused were convicted by the trial court. The appellants accused were on bail during trial and they were taken in custody at the time of conviction. 6. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion about merits of the case and also on grounds as raised by learned counsel for the appellants but disposal of appeal will take its own time, therefore, in view of discussion made hereinabove, the suspension of sentence application is hereby allowed and it is ordered that sentence of appellants-applicants accused (1) Hari S/o Shri Prabhu and (2) Chandrapal S/o Prabhu is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of them would execute a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this Court on 05.08.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- [2025:RJ-JP:17905] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1776/2024] 1. That the appellants accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and not repeat crime of any nature during period of suspension of sentence/bail. 2. That the appellants will appear before the Trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 3. That if the appellants change 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 address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 7. In case, the applicants have violated any condition then the order of suspension of sentence shall be recalled and cancelled. 8. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 9. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/22