[2025:RJ-JD:4238-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 483/2024 IN D.B. Criminal Appeal No.100/2024 Bhupendra Rankawat @ Bhanu son of Shri Surendra, aged about 28 years, resident of 6, Amrit Vihar Nagar, Police Station Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur. (presently lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi. Mr. Ramprakash Dudi. For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.K. Gurjar, GA-cum-AAG assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, AAAG. Mr. Gokulesh Bohra for Mr. Neelkanth Bohra. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI Order 22/01/2025 This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the convict-appellant, namely, Bhupendra Rankawat @ Bhanu who has been convicted in Sessions Case No.84/2017 (N.C.V. No.84/2017) for committing the offences under sections 302/120B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In Sessions Case No.84/2017, Pawan Kumar, Bhupendra Rankawat, Hemant Upadhyay and Sultan Khan were convicted for committing various offences under the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case against the accused persons is based on circumstantial evidence and, in particular, last seen together [2025:RJ-JD:4238-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-483/2024] evidence. In the trial, the prosecution examined 34 witnesses out of whom P.W.1-Teja Ram, P.W.5-Ramesh Mundra, P.W.6-Dinesh Bhati, P.W.11-Tarun Kumar, P.W.24-Pankaj are projected as the witnesses to last seen together theory. This is the case of the prosecution that at the instance of Bhupendra Rankawat a cotton strap used for weaving cot was recovered. This is also the prosecution story that Bhupendra Rankawat was seen in the company of the deceased Pramod Rao at various places on 22nd January 2017. Mr. N.K. Gurjar, the learned Additional Advocate General has indicated that there were other evidences such as CDRs, clothes, etc. and that would connect Bhupendra Rankawat with the crime. 4. Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi, the learned counsel for the convict- applicant, namely, Bhupendra Rankawat has raised manifold contentions and, in particular, (i) Bhupendra Rankawat was not named in the First Information Report, and, (ii) the chain of circumstances is not complete. 5. Mr. N.K. Gurjar, the learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently opposed this application for the suspension of sentence primarily on the ground that after the conviction of the accused the presumption of innocence dilutes and unless there is substantial error in the judgment under challenge the accused should not be enlarged on bail. 6. Mr. Gokulesh Bohra, the learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed this application for suspension of sentence referring to the findings recorded by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan. [2025:RJ-JD:4238-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-483/2024] 7. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, this is the duty of the prosecution to produce cogent and clinching evidence as to the circumstances sought to be proved against the accused. This is also necessary for the prosecution to demonstrate that the chain of circumstances is so complete and every possibility of innocence of the accused has been ruled out. 8. There was evidence of P.W.1-Teja Ram that for some time Bhupendra was not seen in the company of the deceased Pramod Rao and he was not with him at least when he was being taken for burial. On such evidence, we find that there is a prima facie case made out by Bhupendra Rankawat @ Bhanu that the chain of circumstances was broken. Quite apparently, the law on the subject attaches a different rigor to accept the evidence tendered by the prosecution. 9. Therefore, D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.483 of 2024 filed in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.100 of 2024 is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence awarded to the convict, namely, Bhupendra Rankawat in Sessions Case No.84 of 2017 shall remain suspended during pendency of the D.B. Criminal Appeal No.100 of 2024 and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge. He shall appear in this Court on 24th February 2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below: “1. That he will appear before the trial court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. [2025:RJ-JD:4238-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-483/2024] 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s) they will give in writing their changed address to the trial court." 10. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused- applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial court. In case the said convict-applicant does not appear before the trial Court, learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail. (DR. NUPUR BHATI),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J 83-/Devesh/Surabhi-