Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahavir Sargara vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 26 August, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:37908-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1349/2025
Mahavir Sargara S/o Kanaram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
Modikalan, District Nagaur.
(Presently Lodged At District Jail, Merta)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
Mr. Omprakash Joshi &
Mr. Karan Joshi for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order
26/08/2025
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant under
section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') (430 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023) seeking suspension of sentence awarded to him by
the learned Sessions Judge, Merta (hereinafter referred to as 'trial
Court') vide judgment dated 13.06.2025 passed in Session Case
No.18/2020 whereby following sentences have been awarded
against the accused-applicant.
S.No Offence Sentence Fine
1. 302/34 Rigorous To pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-; in
IPC Imprisonment for default thereof to further
Life undergo two years' simple
imprisonment
2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that the
present applicant-appellant has been falsely implicated in the
present case as he was only present at the time of incident being
[2025:RJ-JD:37908-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1349/2025]
a khalasi in the offending truck. He further submits that even the
name of the applicant-appellant has not been reflected in the
statement of PW-8 Joganath, who is independent eye-witness of
the incident. He further submits that even as per the statement of
PW-3 Gyarsi Devi, she was having illicit relationship with the driver
of the truck co-accused Vinod Tiwari and has no enmity with the
present applicant-appellant. He further submits that in the
statement of PW-3 Gyarsi Devi, it is stated that the present
applicant-appellant was sitting beside the driver Vinod Tiwari. He
further submits that even in the statement of PW-3 Gyarsi Devi
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the present applicant-
appellant has not been named. Further, it is submitted that during
trial, the applicant-appellant was on bail granted by this Court vide
order dated 06.11.2020. He, therefore, prays that the sentence in
the case of present applicant-appellant may be suspended during
the pendency of the present appeal.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported by learned
counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the
submissions and submit that the principal accused is Vinod Tiwari,
who was driving the vehicle and the applicant-appellant was
sitting besides him. He further submits that Vinod Tiwari was
having illicit relationship with the wife of deceased Shivnath and
while Vinod Tiwari was talking to the wife of the deceased
Shivnath, the applicant-appellant was present in the vehicle and,
therefore, he was having knowledge about the intentions of the
principal accused Vinod Tiwari. In view of the submissions made,
[2025:RJ-JD:37908-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1349/2025]
learned counsel for the respondents pray that the application for
suspension of sentence may be dismissed.
4. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and
have gone through the relevant record of the case and also
scanned the statements of witnesses PW-8 Joganath and PW-3
Gyarsi Devi. In the statement of PW-8 Joganath, it has come on
record that the offending truck was driven by Vinod Tiwari and he
has not named the applicant-appellant. Even in the statement of
PW-3 Gyarsi, who is the wife of deceased Shivnath, she has stated
that she was in illicit relationship with Vinod Tiwari and she has
given the location of their place, wherein she along with her son
and husband was traveling. In the statement of PW-3 Gyarsi, she
had not attributed any specific role of the present appellant and
there was no enmity with him.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, since the enmity in
the present case was with Vinod Tiwari only and no allegation of
overt act has been reported against the present applicant-
appellant, therefore, without commenting on the merit and de-
merit of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to suspend the
sentence of the applicant-appellant.
6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
by the applicant-appellant is hereby allowed. It is ordered that the
sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta vide
judgment dated 13.06.2025 in Session Case No.18/2020 against
the applicant - Mahavir Sargara S/o Kanaram shall remain
suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be
released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum
[2025:RJ-JD:37908-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1349/2025]
of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this
Court on 26.09.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
(i) That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of
January of every year till the appeal is decided.
(ii) That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will
give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to
the counsel in the High Court.
(iii) Similarly, if the sureties change their address, they will give in
writing their changed address to the trial Court.
7. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-
applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also
be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall
not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to
pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said
accused applicant does not appear before the trial court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
8. Needless to state that the observations made hereinabove in
relation to guilt or otherwise of the applicant is prima-facie opinion
considering the material to the extent necessary for the purpose
of consideration of instant application. None of the parties shall
rely upon the findings or observations made herein at the time of
arguing final hearing of the appeal.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
37-Payal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
