[2025:RJ-JP:36952-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Ap- peal) No. 423/2025 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.38/2019 Surajbhan Son Of Shri Nawal Kishore, R/o Vill. Sop Ps And Teh. Nadoti Dist. Karauli Raj. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Kota) ----Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 11/09/2025 1. This second suspension of sentence application has been filed by the accused-applicant along with the appeal. 2. Counsel for the applicant has annexed the certificate under Rule 311 (3) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules to the effect that the sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded to the appli- cant under Section 376-D r/w 120-B r/w 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act and he in judicial custody. Counsel submits that the accused-applicant has falsely been involved in the case. Counsel further submits that the applicant has served the sentence for more than 12 years. Counsel also submits that the applicant has not been named in the FIR. Counsel also submits that hearing of the appeal may take a long time. Therefore, he prayed that sentence awarded to the accused-applicant may be suspended and the ac- [2025:RJ-JP:36952-DB] (2 of 2) [SOSA-423/2025] cused-applicant be released on bail during the pendency of the ap- peal. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant relied upon the judgment passed by The 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 and the other judgments passed by this Court in the matter of ‘Banti @ Irphan versus State of Rajasthan & Anr.’, (SOSA No.810/2024 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.695/2017) de- cided on 29.01.2025 and ‘Dinesh Kumar versus State of Ra- jasthan’ (D.B. Criminal Appeal No.213/2021) decided on 13.08.2025. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the present application for suspension of sentence and submits that age of victim was about 14 years at the time of incident and in her statement recorded during trial, she has leveled allegation of com- mitting rape with her against the accused-applicant. 5. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case; the statement of PW-1-victim and the fact that victim was about 14 years old girl at the time of incident, no case is made out to al- low the second suspension of sentence application. 7. Hence, the second suspension of sentence application stands dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J PAYAL DHAWAN /25