[2026:RJ-JP:11846-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Ap- peal) No. 577/2025 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.247/2023 Gulab Kanwar W/o Vijendra Singh, Aged About 99 Years, R/o Tyonda Police Station Khetri District . Jhunjhunu , Rajasthan (Ac- cused Applicant Is Confined In Central Jail Jaipur ) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. GA Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal, Adv. with Mr. Harshit Mehta, Adv. Ms. Bhanwari Kumari, Adv. Ms. Abhilasha Chouhdary, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 19/03/2026 This is second suspension of sentence application filed by the appellant. Counsel for the appellant submits that both husband and wife are behind the bars. The first suspension of sentence application was dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 05.12.2023 which reads as under:- “1. Accused-applicants have preferred this application for suspension of sentence. [2026:RJ-JP:11846-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-577/2025] 2. Heard on application for suspension of sen- tence. 3. It is contended by counsel appearing for the applicants that applicants are females who were on anticipatory bail. Initially, they were not charge-sheeted, though their names were appearing in the F.I.R. Charge-sheet was ini- tially filed against Bhupendra and Vijendra, thereafter, the present applicants were sum- moned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. It is further contended that PW-3, who is an eye-witness has not named the applicants in his state- ment. It is also contended that there was no recovery from the applicants and disposal of appeal is bound to take time. 4. Learned Addl. G.A. as well as counsel ap- pearing for the complainant have opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is contended that name of the applicants is ap- pearing in the F.I.R. and the police initially did not file charge-sheet against them, however, from the evidence that was adduced before the Court, Court proceeded against the appli- cants under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and, there- after, after recording of evidence has con- victed the accused-applicants. It is also con- tended that coaccused - Vijendra, who was convicted by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 302 and 323 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C., preferred an appeal before the High Court and High Court acquitted the ac- cused for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and convicted him for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C., aggrieved by which, complainant preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and Apex Court set-aside the order passed by the High Court and convicted Vijendra for offence under Sec- tion 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. vide or- der dated 11.04.2023. It is further contended that once the Apex Court has convicted the co-accused for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C., it implies that other co-accused, who are also members of the un- lawful assembly, have to be treated alike. 5. We have considered the contentions. 6. Looking to the statement of PW-4, who was an injured eyewitness; also taking note of the fact that one of the co-accused - Vijendra, has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and without [2026:RJ-JP:11846-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-577/2025] going into merits of the case, we are not in- clined to entertain the present application for suspension of sentence. 7. Accordingly, the present application for sus- pension of sentence is dismissed.” Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also rejected the suspension of sentence application of the appellant. After dismissal of the first suspension of sentence application of the appellant, there is no change in the circumstances except the period of custody. In that view of the matter, We are not inclined to grant the indulgence to the appellant as prayed for. Hence, this second application for suspension of sentence stands dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J JYOTI /6