[2026:RJ-JP:29964-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 624/2026 CNR: RJHC020286622026 | URN: SOSA / 1200U / 2026 IN D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 69/2026 Hardeva Ram Son Of Late Shri Surja Ram, Resident Of Baral, Police Station Ranoli, District-Sikar, Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner) ----Accused-Appellant Versus The State Of Rajasthan through its Public Prosecutor. ----Non-Appellant Connected With D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 817/2026 CNR: RJHC020332402026 | URN: SOSA / 1571U / 2026 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 354/2026 Bhanu Pratap Singh S/o Jagnnath Singh, R/o Batdanau, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan. At present behind Krishi Upaj Mandi, Bajrang Colony, Sikar, Police Station Udyog Nagar Sikar, District Sikar, Rajasthan. At Present Confined At Jail Bikaner. ----Accused Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 818/2026 CNR: RJHC020356262026 | URN: SOSA / 1572U / 2026 In S.B.Criminal Appeal No. 490/2026 1. Narendra Kumar S/o Ramdevaram, R/o Kishanpura, Police Station Ranoli, District Sikar, Rajasthan 2. Omprakash Moond S/o Bajranglal, R/o Baral, Police Station [2026:RJ-JP:29964-DB] (2 of 8) [SOSA-624/2026] Ranoli, District Sikar, Rajasthan (At Present Both Accused Confined In District Jail, Sikar) ----Accused/Appellants Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent/State For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V R Bajwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amar Kumar & Ms. Savita Nathawat Mr. Rajesh Goswami with Mr. Shiv Jangir Mr. Garvit Saraswat Mr. Adeet Srivastava Mr. Jay Bhardwaj Ms. Monika Shekhawat Mr. Pankaj Gupta with Mr. Harshit Bhatt Mr. Saurabh Yadav Ms. Stuti Dave For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma Mr. Ashvin Garg Mr. Hemd Bhushan Vedi Mr. Mohit Goyal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA Order 03/08/2026 These suspension of sentence applications under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 have been filed by the accused-applicants (for brevity, “the applicants”) alongwith the appeals. The applicants have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sikar (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’) vide judgment dated 22.01.2026 passed in Special/Sessions Case No.230/2017 (CIS No.230/2017) as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:29964-DB] (3 of 8) [SOSA-624/2026] Accused-Applicant:-Hardeva Ram 1. Under Section 302 read with 120B IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of ₹50,000/-; in default thereof, five months’ simple imprisonment. Accused-Applicants:-Bhanu Pratap Singh, Omprakash Moond & Narendra Kumar 1. Under Section 120B IPC: Ten years’ simple imprisonment and fine of ₹5,000/-; in default thereof, one month’s simple imprisonment. Learned Senior Counsel for Hardeva Ram submits that although, the learned trial Court has, for holding him guilty of conspiracy, relied upon the testimony of S/Shri Rajendra Rao (retrial) (PW2), Kamlesh Kumar (Retrial) (PW3), Suresh Kumar (Retrial) (PW4) and Gopal (PW2) to record a finding that he had threatened to murder the deceased Sardar Rao few days prior to the incident; but, the complainant Hanuman Prasad (retrial) (PW1)-father of the deceased, himself has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that since, on none of the two occasions, as narrated by the aforesaid witnesses, the applicant has, as a matter of fact, issued threatening, he did not mention these facts in his written report (Ex. P1). He further submits that he has been implicated in this case on account of being relative of one of the accused namely Subhash Moond @ Subhash Baral; however, the prosecution did not lead any evidence to reflect his conversation or, for that matter, any meeting of mind with him to establish the conspiracy. He also contended that the learned trial Court has erred in relying upon the Ex. P-93, a written information furnished by Shri Prithviraj (PW40), the then Additional Superintendent of [2026:RJ-JP:29964-DB] (4 of 8) [SOSA-624/2026] Police, ACB Choki, Sikar as also his statement to draw an inference that he deliberately went to the ACB Choki on the fateful day of 23.08.2017 to create the plea of alibi whereas, he was never called for investigation. Learned Senior counsel submits that, the prosecution did not lead any evidence to show his involvement in the alleged offence and merely on suspicion, his conviction has been recorded. He asserts that even if all the circumstances against him are taken cumulatively, the same give rise only to a suspicion which could not take place of proof. Learned counsel for the applicant-Bhanu Pratap Singh submits that he shared similar allegation with allegation co- accused Yatendra Pal Singh @ Pappu Topi @ Yash who was acquitted of the charges framed against him, but he was convicted only on the basis of his alleged conversation with the co-accused Subhash Moond ignoring and overlooking that the prosecution did not lead any evidence to demonstrate that either he talked with the co-accused or, that the mobile number, allegedly used by the co-accused, as a matter of fact, either belonged to him or was ever used by him. Learned counsel for the applicants-Narendra Kumar and Omprakash Moond, contends that their conviction under Section 120-B of the IPC has been recorded merely on suspicion without there being any legally admissible evidence to connect them with the alleged offence. He submits that while, allegation against the applicant Omprakash Moond was of facilitating stay of four co- accused person for a day, i.e., 20.08.2017 in the rooms No. 205 and 206 of Hotel Krishnam, Dadiya, Sikar however, as per copy of the guest register of the hotel (Ex. P81), only one room, i.e., No. [2026:RJ-JP:29964-DB] (5 of 8) [SOSA-624/2026] 205 was booked in his name that too for a single person. Qua the applicant Narendra Kumar, learned counsel asserts that while, the prosecution has come out with an allegation against him of facilitating booking of a room for stay of four co-accused in a hotel on 21.08.2017; but, inviting attention of this Court towards the copy of the passenger register (Ex. P186), he submitted that it was booked in the name of Yash Shekhawat with his mobile number reflected, who was acquitted by the learned trial Court. Learned counsels submit that all the applicants were on bail during trial with no allegation of its misuse, hearing of the appeal is likely to take time and therefore, pray for suspension of substantive sentence awarded to them. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, opposing the submissions, contended that the learned trial Court has recorded a finding of guilt of the applicants on the basis of cogent material available on record. He submitted that the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence available against the applicants establishes their complicity in the offence. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suspension of sentence applications. Heard. Considered. While, the applicant-Hardeva Ram has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment, the other applicants have been sentenced for a period of 10 years upon their conviction under Section 120B IPC simplicitor. The incriminating evidence against the applicant Hardeva Ram, which has been relied upon by the learned trial Court, is deposition of S/Shri Gopal (PW2), Rajendra Rao [2026:RJ-JP:29964-DB] (6 of 8) [SOSA-624/2026] (PW2)/Retrial, Kamlesh Kumar (PW3)/Retrial and Suresh Kumar (PW4)/Retrial wherein, they have stated to have heard the applicant issuing threatening to murder the deceased before incoming election, however, we find that the complainant-father of the deceased namely Hanuman Prasad (PW1)/Retrial, during his cross-examination, has categorically stated that no such threatening was ever issued by the applicant lest, he would have mentioned this fact in his written report (Ex.P-1) based whereupon, the FIR (Ex.P-96) was registered. The another piece of evidence relied upon by the learned trial Court is his alleged conversation with the co-accused Subhash Moond over mobile phone for which, no connecting evidence is reflected from the record. Allegation against the applicant Bhanu Pratap Singh and co- accused Yatendra Pal Singh @ Pappu Topi @ Yash was of fabricating the number plates of the car used by the co-accused in commission of the crime, however, while, the co-accused Yatendra Pal Singh @ Pappu Topi @ Yash was acquitted, appliant’s conviction was recorded on the basis of his conversation with the co-accused; but, at this stage, we are not convinced, prima facie, that the prosecution was able to connect his complicity on account of his alleged conversation. Their Lordships have, in the case of Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.; (2014) 5 SCC 568, held as under:- “21. The other evidence sought to be relied for summoning the appellant is the alleged conversation between the appellant and the accused on and immediately after the day of the occurrence. But, nothing has come during the course of trial regarding the content [2026:RJ-JP:29964-DB] (7 of 8) [SOSA-624/2026] of the conversation and from the call records alone, the appellant’s complicity in the crime does not surface at all.” Similarly, we find substantial force in the submission of learned counsel for the applicants Narendra Kumar and Omprakash Moond that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution against them, was not prima facie convincing to show them as co-conspirators. All the applicants were on bail during trial with no allegation of its misuse. Looking to the docket of this Court, it cannot be denied that hearing of appeal is likely to take time. In the aforesaid factual and legal context, we deem it just and proper to allow the suspension of sentence applications. Accordingly, the suspension of sentence applications are allowed. Substantive sentences awarded to the applicants- Hardeva Ram S/o Late Shri Surja Ram, Bhanu Pratap Singh S/o Jagnnath Singh, Narendra Kumar S/o Ramdevaram & Omprakash Moond S/o Bajranglal by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 22.01.2026 shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeals and they shall be released on bail provided each of them furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to the effect that they shall appear before this Court on or before 03.09.2026 and as and when called upon to do so till disposal of the appeals and subject to the following conditions:- 1. That they will appear before the learned trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeals are decided. 2. That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address(es) to the learned trial Court as [2026:RJ-JP:29964-DB] (8 of 8) [SOSA-624/2026] well as to their learned counsel in the High Court who shall, in turn, inform this Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(es), they will give in writing their changed address to the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicants in a separate file(s). Such file(s) be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused-applicants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file(s) shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of the cases in the learned trial Court. In case, the said accused-applicants do not appear before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of benefit extended by this order. (CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Tahir/Nidhi/19-21