HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 630/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.358/2025 Mahendra Singh @ Patel S/o Harisingh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Sighaniya, Police Station Sadar Jhalawar, District Jhalawar. (Presently Confined In District Jail Jhalawar, District Jhalawar) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of Sentence No. 631/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 764/2025 Sonu S/o Shri Heeralal, Sonu S/o Shri Heeralal, Aged About 25 Years, Ro Jhalarpatan Police Station Jhalarpatan District Jhalawar (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Kota) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Its Public Prosecutor 2. Vijay Meena S/o Phoolchand Meena, Aged About 21 Years, R/o New Village Singhaniya Jhalawar Sadar District Jhalawar Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Singh Yaduvanshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 19/05/2025 1. These applications for suspension of sentence are preferred by appellants-Mahendra Singh @ Patel S/o Harisingh and Sonu S/o Shri Heeralal in pending appeals filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 23.01.2025 in Sessions (2 of 4) [SOSA-630/2025] Case No.106/2019 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST (POA) Act Cases), Jhalawar whereby appellant Sonu was convicted for offence under Sections 341 and 307 IPC whereas Mahendra was convicted under Sections 341 and 307/34 IPC and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated by complainant party. He further submitted that both appellants were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time. He further referred report Ex.P-1 and submitted that initially both parties, complainant party and accused were taking drinks together and later they separated but due to some provocational fight after some time, they indulged in free fight. He further submitted that as complainant injured was allegedly hit by car and due to said accident one of the injured sustained injury on leg, which is not a vital part. He further submitted that no injuries were found to be dangerous to life. He also submitted that all independent witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. He further referred the evidence of PW-20 Dr. Anil Kumar and PW-15 Dr. Bhupendra Golecha and submitted that no injuries were opined as dangerous to life but the trial court has convicted these appellants under Section 307 or 307/34 IPC. He further referred the discrepancies and contradictions and submitted that these are sufficient to discard the case of prosecution. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificates and same are taken on record. He also submitted that complainant was informed. (3 of 4) [SOSA-630/2025] 4. Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of report Ex.P-1 submitted by PW-1 Vijay on 26.10.2019, FIR No.208/2019 was registered at P.S. Sadar, Jhalawar. After investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against appellants under Sections 341, 325, 326, 307, 504, 34 IPC and 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. After framing charge, prosecution has examined 21 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but they have not submitted any defence evidence. The appellant Sonu was convicted for offence under Sections 341 and 307 IPC whereas Mahendra under Sections 341 and 307/34 IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to each of the appellants is 7 years. 6. We have considered statement of PW-1 Vijay, PW-2 Lakhan and PW-3 Veeram Dev. Also considered statement of PW-20 Dr. Anil Kumar. Learned counsel for appellant has also referred statement of MTO, PW-14 Ravindra who prepared mechanical report Ex.P-16. 7. At this stage, it is not possible to express any opinion on merits of the case but these appellants were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time, therefore it is appropriate to allow SOS applications. 8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. The applications under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellants accused Mahendra Singh @ Patel S/o Harisingh and Sonu S/o Shri Heeralal is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of (4 of 4) [SOSA-630/2025] 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 29.08.2025 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 applicant(s) 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 address(s),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/33-34