[2025:RJ-JP:19967] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 407/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 505/2025 1. Bhudev Son Of Balli @ Balveer, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village Gavdi Police Station Chiksana District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) Presently Confined In Central Jail Sewar Bharatpur 2. Ranveer @ Guddu @ Baniya Son Of Harchandi, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Village Gavdi Police Station Chiksana District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) Presently Confined In Central Jail Sewar Bharatpur ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 12/05/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellants- Bhudev Son Of Balli @ Balveer, Ranveer @ Guddu @ Baniya Son Of Harchandi in pending appeal which was admitted on 25.02.2025 and aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 15.02.2025 in Sessions Case No. 44/2018 passed by learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Areas, Bharatpur whereby appellants were convicted for offence under [2025:RJ-JP:19967] (2 of 4) [SOSA-407/2025] Sections 323/34, 325/34, 307/34 and 341/34 of IPC and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that the appellants are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated by complainant party. He further referred the evidence of prosecution and submitted that it was a free fight between two groups and the injuries were not specifically assigned to any of the accused. He further submitted that in cross-examination PW-1 Devendra Kumar has admitted that he cannot specifically name any of appellant accused, for specific injury. He further referred the statement of PW-5 Veervati and submitted that there is discrepancy in the cross-examination and learned trial court has ignored the same. He further referred the cross-examination of PW-2 Munendra and submitted that no specific assignment of injury was made by him. He further referred the cross-examination of PW-2 and submitted that there was a land dispute between the parties and incident was a result of sudden provocation. He further referred the cross-examination and opinion of PW-9 Dr. Sanjay Choudhary and submitted that the injury was neither dangerous nor sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificates of accused and same are taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of report Ex. P/1 submitted by PW-1 Devendra Kumar FIR no. 319/2016 was registered at P.S. Chiksana, District [2025:RJ-JP:19967] (3 of 4) [SOSA-407/2025] Bharatpur under Sections 143, 323 and 341 IPC on 25.09.2016. After investigation police has filed a charge-sheet against Harchandi, Ranveer @ Guddu @ Baniya and Bhudev. During trial accused Harchandi has expired and proceedings were dropped against Harchandi. After framing the charge the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence they have examined DW-1 Maya and DW-2 Nimo. Learned trial court after concluding the trial has convicted the appellant accused under Sections 323, 341, 325 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to each of appellant is five years. 6. The appellants accused were on bail during trial. As per criminal antecedents one more case was registered against Ranveer @ Guddu @ Baniya and three more cases were registered against Bhudev. Out of three cases against Bhudev two were relating to Excise Act. 7. We have considered the cross-examination of PW-1 Devendra, PW-2 Munendra and PW-3 Veervati. Also considered the injury reports and opinion of PW-9 Dr. Sanjay. The trial court has convicted both the appellants with aid of Section 34 IPC. 8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, but having considered the totality and facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that disposal of appeal will take its own time, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellants accused- Bhudev Son Of Balli @ Balveer, Ranveer @ Guddu @ Baniya Son Of [2025:RJ-JP:19967] (4 of 4) [SOSA-407/2025] Harchandi is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of them would execute 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 Judge for his appearance in this court on 22.08.2025 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 he is 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 applicant(s) 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 address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 9. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 10. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /20(SOSA)