[2025:RJ-JP:45759-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc. IIIrd Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 1927/2025 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.598/2017 Omprakash Alias O.p. Meena Son Of Shri Girraj Prasad Meena, Resident Of Patti Kala Bamanwas Police Station Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur. (At Present In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecution ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Meena Mr. Bhupesh Meena Mr. Prashant Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Yadav, Addl.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 13/11/2025 1. This third suspension of sentence application has been filed by the accused-applicant along with the appeal. 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 324, 323/149 & 148 of Indian Penal Code, 1908. 3. Counsel for the accused-applicant has annexed the certificate under Rule 311 (3) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules to the effect that accused-applicant was on bail during trial. He further submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely [2025:RJ-JP:45759-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-1927/2025] implicated in this matter and the accused-applicant has already served the sentence for a period of more than thirteen years. He further submits that the sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded to the accused-applicant under Sections 302 of IPC. He further submits that the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future and prayed that sentence awarded to the accused-applicant may be suspended and he be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 4. Counsel for the accused-applicant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Saudan Singh versus The State of Uttar Pradesh’, (Criminal Appeal No.308/2022 (SLP (Crl.) No.4633/2021), decided on 25.02.2022, wherein it is held as under:- “The second category of cases can be one where the person has served out more than 10 years of sentence. In these cases also at one go bail can be granted unless there are any extenuating circumstances against him.” 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the application for suspension of sentence. 6. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, and also considering the facts that the accused-applicant has already served the sentence for a period of more than thirteen years, the accused-applicant was on bail during trial and also in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Saudan Singh’ (supra), we deem it just and proper to allow this criminal miscellaneous suspension of sentence application. [2025:RJ-JP:45759-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-1927/2025] 8. In that view of the matter, this criminal miscellaneous suspension of sentence application is allowed and it is ordered that execution of sentence awarded to the accused-applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of the criminal appeal and the accused-applicant be admitted to bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before this Court on 15.12.2025 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court through e-mail/fax for necessary compliance. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /15