[2025:RJ-JP:18115] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 270/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.332/2025 1. Roop Kishore S/o Jawali Ram, R/o Village Singhada P.s. Rudawal District Bharatpur (Raj) (At Present In Sub Jail Bayana Bharatpur) 2. Roop Singh S/o Jawali Ram, R/o Village Singhada P.s. Rudawal District Bharatpur (Raj) (At Present In Sub Jail Bayana Bharatpur) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 29/04/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellants-Roop Kishore S/o Jawali Ram and Roop Singh S/o Jawali Ram aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 09.01.2025 in Sessions Case No.46/2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bayana, Bharatpur whereby appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 323/34 and 307/34 IPC and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated. He further [2025:RJ-JP:18115] (2 of 4) [SOSA-270/2025] submitted that initially a report was registered on complaint of Phool Singh and a cross-case was also registered by accused party. He further submitted that during investigation, police has added Section 307 IPC and filed charge-sheet against three persons. He also submitted that the cross-case is still pending before the JJB but the instant case was decided by the trial court without drawing a conclusion that who was aggressor. He also referred the evidence and submitted that this is a case of free fight and no specific attribution was made upon any of the appellants. He also submitted that as per injured, the deadly assault was made by accused Jasraj and a stick has been recovered from him. He also referred contradictions and discrepancies and submitted that the trial court has ignored them while convicting appellants. At last, he submitted that appellants were on bail during trial and never misused the liberty granted to them. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificates along with report received from concerned police station and same are taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of report submitted by complainant, PW-1-Phool Singh, FIR No.128/2016 was registered at P.S. Rudawal, Bharatpur and after investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against Roop Kishore, Roop Singh and Jasraj under Sections 323, 341, 336, 307 and 34 IPC. After framing the charge, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. Accused were [2025:RJ-JP:18115] (3 of 4) [SOSA-270/2025] examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they submitted two witnesses DW-1 Ravi and Dw-2 Ashok as defence witness and exhibited 4 documents. Learned trial court has convicted appellants under Sections 323/34 and 307/34 IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to the appellants is 10 years. The appellants were on bail during trial and after conviction, they were taken in custody. No other criminal antecedents is reported against both the appellants. We have gone through the statements of witnesses as referred by learned counsel for appellant. Injured Man Singh was examined as PW-5. Two other injured PW-2 Rakhi and PW-3 Vishnu were also examined by the prosecution. We have considered statement of PW-8-Dr. Charan Singh, who examined injured and prepared medical report. Also considered statement of PW-9 Dr. Rupendra, who exhibited opinion along with X-ray report. Injured Man Singh was operated by PW-11 Devendra Kumar Purohit. 6. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case but having considered the facts and circumstances, it is appropriate to allow SOS application of present appellants. 7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellants can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellants accused-Roop Kishore S/o Jawali Ram and Roop Singh S/o Jawali Ram is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of 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 [2025:RJ-JP:18115] (4 of 4) [SOSA-270/2025] Judge for their appearance in this court on 09.08.2025 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 applicants 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 addresses, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 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 PREETI VALECHA /19