[2025:RJ-JP:6106] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.46/2025 In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 244/2025 Omprakash S/o Sitaram, Resident Of Village Teekel Narukan Police Station Phagi District Jaipur (Rajasthan) [At Present In Central Jail Jaipur] ----Accused-Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sandeep Saini, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 12/02/2025 1. The present application for suspension of sentence has been filed by the accused-applicant under Section 438 read with Section 442 of B.N.S.S., 2023 challenging the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Phagi, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.39/2023 whereby, learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed on behalf of the accused-applicant, affirmed the conviction vide order dated 01.06.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Phagi, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in Regular Criminal Case No.1358/2014 by which the accused-applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under [2025:RJ-JP:6106] (2 of 3) [CRLR-244/2025] Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and was sentenced for two years simple imprisonment with fine. 2. Feeling aggrieved of the orders dated 29.01.2025 and 01.06.2017, the present application for suspension has been filed by the accused-applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submitted that the accused-applicant was not negligent in driving the vehicle in question and the alleged accident occurred due to bursting of tyre of the vehicle in question. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submitted that the accused-applicant has a strong prima-facie case in his favour and there is likelihood that the accused-applicant will succeed in the revision petition. Learned counsel also submitted that both the Courts below have committed serious error of law and fact in convicting and sentencing the accused-applicant. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant also contended that decision of the revision petition is likely to take time, therefore, the present application filed on behalf of the accused-applicant be allowed and his sentence be suspended. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused-applicant. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the decision of the revision petition is likely to take time, but without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused-applicant. [2025:RJ-JP:6106] (3 of 3) [CRLR-244/2025] 8. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded vide orders dated 29.01.2025 and 01.06.2017 to the accused-applicant namely, Omprakash S/o Sitaram in the matter shall remain suspended during pendency of petition, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before this court on 07.03.2025 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J AARZOO ARORA /39