[2026:RJ-JP:1428] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2607/2025 Yadram Meena S/o Shri Nathuram, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Meenapura, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar with Ms. Priyanka Chauhan Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Bhatti Ms. Nisha Jhaknariya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 13/01/2026 1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court, Anti Corruption Cases, Alwar vide judgment dated 16.12.2025 in Sessions Case No.18/2017 for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act which is punishable u/s 13 (2) of the Act and sentenced for four years Rigorous Imprisonment and four years Rigorous Imprisonment respectively with default stipulation. 2. Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. Pending disposal of the appeal, by way of present application under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 the appellant seeks suspension of sentence and release on bail. [2026:RJ-JP:1428] (2 of 3) [SOSA-2607/2025] 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial court has erred in convicting the appellant without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. It is contended that the demand, which is sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He further argued that mere recovery of tainted currency cannot be the basis of conviction in the absence of cogent and reliable proof of demand and acceptance. It is further submitted that the appellant remained in custody during investigation and trial for more than one month. He contended that the appellant was trapped for allegedly taking a bribe of ₹5,000/-. The sentence awarded is four years’ rigorous imprisonment, and appeals in such matters are not likely to be heard in the near future. Therefore, considering that the appellant is a senior citizen aged about 67 years, his application for suspension of sentence deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence and submitted that the trial court has convicted the appellant after proper appreciation of the evidence. It is further contended that looking to the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the application for suspension of sentence is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence and perused the material available on record. [2026:RJ-JP:1428] (3 of 3) [SOSA-2607/2025] 6. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the grounds raised in the appeal, the short sentence of four years, the amount involved, the likelihood of the appeal not being decided in the near future, and the absence of any criminal antecedents against the appellant, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellant Yadram Meena S/o Shri Nathuram. 7. It is, therefore, ordered that the sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended till disposal of the appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the trial Court to the effect that he shall appear before this Court on 17.02.2026 and as and when called upon to do so. 8. The application is accordingly disposed of. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77