Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6837 (RAJ)

SHANKAR SINGH SON OF SHISHPAL SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

SOSA/1396/2025 · 2026-04-16

Ashutosh Kumar, Inderjeet Singh

Criminal Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:16033-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc. II Suspension Of Sentence Application No.1396/2025 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.8/2024 Shankar Singh Son Of Shishpal Singh, Aged 38 Years, Resident Of Manaksas, Police Station Udaipurwati District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan (At Present The Accused Appellant is confined in The Jail Jhunjhunu) ----Accused/Applicant Versus State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, Dy.G.A. with Mr. Aman Agarwal, A.A.A.G. Mr. Rishabh Kala, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 16/04/2026 1. This second application seeking suspension of sentence has been filed by the applicant along with the appeal. 2. Counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused- applicant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 323/149 IPC. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that the accused-applicant was on bail during trial. He further [2026:RJ-JP:16033-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-1396/2025] submits that there was a sudden fight between the accused persons and the complainant party and the eye witnesses have levelled allegation of beating the deceased against all the accused persons. He further submits that in the said incident, accused- applicant has also sustained four injuries including one head injury. Learned counsel contends that one of the eye-witnesses i.e. PW-1 has submitted in his cross-examination that he was not having any iron rod with him. He further contends that the hearing of appeal may take long time and prayed that sentence awarded to the applicant may be suspended and he be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 4. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has opposed the second application for suspension of sentence. 5. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and also considering the fact that in the said incident, the accused-applicant has also sustained injuries including head injury and also considering the fact that the hearing of appeal may take long time, we deem it just and proper to allow this criminal miscellaneous application seeking suspension of sentence. 7. In that view of the matter, this criminal miscellaneous 2nd suspension of sentence application is allowed and it is ordered that execution of sentence awarded to the accused-applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of the criminal appeal and the accused-applicant be admitted to bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before this [2026:RJ-JP:16033-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-1396/2025] Court on 18.05.2026 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court through e-mail/fax for necessary compliance. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J AARZOO ARORA /06