HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.1223/2026 In S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 1327/2026 1. Ashok Son of Peetam Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Abhora, Police Station Kumher, At Present Rent Holder Smt. Geeta Wife Of Yogendra Singh R/o Shyam Sarvor Colony, Police Station Udyog Nagar, District Bharatpur. 2. Om Prakash Son of Kalyanmal Saini, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Kherla Ramsar, P.S.mandawari, District Dausa (Raj.) (At Present Confined At Central Jail Sewar, Bharatpur) ----Accused Appellants Versus State of Rajasthan, through P.P. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gordhan Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA (V.J.) Judgment / Order 16/06/2026 1. This suspension of sentence application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has filed by the accused-applicants (for brevity ‘the applicants’) alongwith the appeal. The applicants have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Bharatpur (District and Sessions Judge), Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’) vide its judgment dated 30.05.2026 passed in Special Session Case No.62/2023 (CIS No.65/2023). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants has submitted a certificate under Rule 311(3) of Rajasthan High Court Rules, wherein, it has been stated that applicants were on bail during (2 of 3) [CRLAS-1327/2026] trial, hence, the sentence as awarded be suspended during pendency of the appeal. 3. Learned counsel submits that the sentence awarded to the co-accused Smt. Geeta has already been suspended by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.06.2026 who also preferred an appeal and thus, prays that sentence awarded to the applicants may also be suspended, during pendency of the appeal. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, opposes the application for suspension of sentence and contends that the learned trial Court did not err in convicting the applicants. 5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the applicants and taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case, the period of incarceration suffered by the applicants and that the hearing of the appeal is likely to take time, this application for suspension of sentence is hereby allowed and it is ordered that execution of the sentence awarded to the applicants, namely Ashok son of Peetam Singh and Om Prakash son of Kalyanmal Saini by the learned trial Court shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal, provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- each together with two sureties in the sum of ₹50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before this Court 18.07.2026 and thereafter, as and (3 of 3) [CRLAS-1327/2026] when called upon to do so till disposal of the appeal 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 appeal is 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 well as to their learned counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(es), they will give in writing their changed address to the learned trial Court. 7. 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 case 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. (RAVI CHIRANIA (V.J.)),J 158/Manish