Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5060 (RAJ)

RAJENDRA KUMAR SON OF SHRI TULSINARAYAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

SOSR/530/2025 · 2026-04-16

Vinod Kumar Bharwani

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:16036] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.530/2025 (Suspension of Sentence) In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2078/2025 Rajendra Kumar son of Shri Tulsinarayan, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Properitor M/s Maruti Industries, Resident Of Plot No 783, Basant Vihar, Kota, Police Station Dadabari, Kota District Kota (Raj.) ----Petitioner/accused Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Rajmal Goyal S/o Prabhulal, R/o 1-A-9, Dadabari, Modi College Road, Parinay Plaza Ke Pass, Dadabari, P.s. Dadabari, Kota (Deceased) through 2/1. Mrs. Kamla Devi W/o Late Shri Rajmal Goyal, R/o 21-B, Sharma Paan Wale Ke Gali, Old Jawahar Nagar Kota. 2/2. Sudha Singhal D/o Late Shri Rajmal, R/o 3/326, Kalpana Chawla Circle, Swami Vivekananad Nagar, Kota 2/3. Santosh Garg D/o Late Shri Rajmal, R/o 2-N-28, Raghubala Residency, Dadabari Chota Choraha, Dadabari Kota (Raj.) 2/4. Suman D/o Late Shri Rajmal, R/o 1384, Basant Vihar, Kota 2/5. Sashikant Goyal S/o Late Shri Rajmal, R/o 3 -Uit Colony, Purane Police Station Kunhari Ke Pass, Kota ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, P.P. with Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singhal, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 16/04/2026 Instant application for suspension of sentence has been preferred on behalf of petitioner under Section 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 alongwith the revision petition seeking suspension of the sentence awarded by the Court of ld. [2026:RJ-JP:16036] (2 of 3) SOSA 530/2025 Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), No.2, Kota, vide judgment dt.24.10.2018, in Criminal Case (CIS) No.21295/2014, whereby the petitioner was convicted for the alleged offence(s) & sentenced to undergo the maximum period of one-year simple imprisonment alongwith a fine. The said conviction & sentence were confirmed by the Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases No.2, Kota, vide judgment dt.25.09.2025, in Criminal Appeal No.375/2018. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was on bail during the trial as well as the appeal. The appeal was decided in his absence, after which he surrendered himself. He has been in judicial custody since 09.03.2026. Counsel further contends that the judgments of conviction & sentence passed by the Courts below, are totally based upon surmises and conjectures, and the revision petition is likely to take a long time to be decided. Counsel further contends that the petitioner has gone through open heart surgery and, therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioner should be suspended during the pendency of the revision petition without imposing any condition with regard to the deposition of the amount. Learned Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the submissions made herein-above. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondents submits that the petitioner/accused has not deposited 20% of the fine/ compensation amount in the ld. trial Court and, therefore, the present application be dismissed. Considering the term of sentence, without commenting upon the merits of the case, and taking into account the arguments made at bar, this Court deems it just & proper to suspend the sentence awarded to the petitioner during the pendency of the revision. [2026:RJ-JP:16036] (3 of 3) SOSA 530/2025 Accordingly, this application for suspension of sentence is allowed. It is hereby ordered that the execution of sentence awarded to the petitioner, namely Rajendra Kumar son of Shri Tulsinarayan, by the ld. Trial Court vide judgment dated 24.10.2018 and affirmed by the ld. Appellate Court vide judgment dated 25.09.2025, shall remain suspend during the pendency of the revision petition, subject to the condition that he shall deposit Rs.20,00,000/- (50% of Rs.40,00,000/-) by way of demand draft in the name of complainant/respondents. He shall also furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- alongwith two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the ld. Trial Court, with the condition that he shall appear before this Court on 18.05.2026 and thereafter, as and when directed. Upon deposit of the aforesaid amount, the same shall be released and disbursed to the complainant/respondents, subject to an undertaking that in the event the petitioner succeeds in the revision petition, the amount shall be returned to him with interest @ 6% per annum within a period of two weeks from the disposal of the revision petition. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for compliance. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK-mahesh