Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:37954) on 26 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:37954]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1345/2025
Mukesh Kumar S/o Santu Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Indo
Ka Bala Police Station Gajner District Bikaner Rajasthan (Lodged
In Central Jail Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1302/2025
1 Shankar Lal S/o Pema Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Indro
Ka Bala Ps Gajner District Bikaner (At Present Lodged In
Central Jail Bikaner)
2. Sharwan Kumar S/o Ramu Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Indro Ka Bala Ps Gajner District Bikaner (At Present Lodged
In Central Jail Bikaner)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Chauhan
Mr. Shrikant Verma
Ms. Anjali Kaushik
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
26/08/2025
1. Heard.
2. learned counsel for the appellants-applicants as well as
learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on
record.
[2025:RJ-JD:37954] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1345/2025]
3. Learned counsel for the appellants-applicants submit that, as
far as the case in hand is concerned, there are three injured viz.
Lal Singh, Prem Singh & Chelu Singh. As far as the injuries upon
Prem Singh & Chelu Singh are concerned, all have been found to
be simple in nature. As far as the injury upon Lal Singh is
concerned, a perusal of the statement of PW-6 Lal Singh reveals
that he had assigned the injury on his forehead and near his eyes
to Jetharam and not upon the present appellants-applicants. They
further submit that Jetharam has already been acquitted by the
learned Trial Court and, even for the injuries upon the body of Lal
Singh, no opinion with regard to the same being dangerous to life
has been given by the medical jurist PW-4 Dr. Navdeep Singh.
They further submit that the incident occurred at the spur of the
movement and there was no permeditation on the part of the
appellants-applicants. They further submit that the appellants-
applicants have remained behind the bars for almost a period of
06 months and the total sentence imposed upon them is 07 years
rigorous imprisonment. They further submit that the hearing of
the appeal will take time and the appellants-applicants were on
bail during the course of trial.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
applications for suspension of sentence and submits that the
statements of injured witnesses sufficiently prove the involvement
of the appellants-applicants in committing the crime in question
and further there are five grievous injuries upon the body of Lal
Singh, which show the brutal manner in which the appellants-
applicants, while acting in collusion, committed the crime.
[2025:RJ-JD:37954] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1345/2025]
5. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of
both the parties and having perused the record of the case, it is
clear that as far as injured Prem Singh & Chelu Singh are
concerned, no injuries have been found to be of grievous in nature
and all the injuries have been found to be simple in nature, caused
by a blunt weapon. As far as injured Lal Singh is concerned,
though qua five injuries the Doctor has opined that they are
grievous in nature, but there is no assertion with regard to the
same being dangerous to life. Furthermore, the fact that the main
injuries caused upon the body of Lal Singh was shown to have
been caused by Jetharam, and Jetharam being acquitted by the
learned Trial Court itself is a relevant consideration at this stage.
Also, considering the fact that the appellants-applicants were on
bail during the course of trial and there are bleak chances of the
criminal appeals being heard in near future, this Court is of the
opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to
the accused appellants-applicants.
6. Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 430 of BNSS are allowed and it is ordered that the
sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, &
Additional Sessions Judge, Disctrict Bikaner, vide judgment dated
05.07.2025 in Sessions Case No.47/2019 (CIS No.517/2014)
against the appellants-applicants; namely, (1) Mukesh Kumar
S/o Santu Ram (2) Shankar Lal S/o Pema Ram & (3)
Sharwan Kumar S/o Ramu Ram, shall remain suspended till
final disposal of the aforesaid appeals and they shall be released
on bail, provided each of them executes a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to
[2025:RJ-JD:37954] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1345/2025]
the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their 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:-
1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial
Court in the month of January of every year till the
appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of
residence, he/she/they will give in writing
his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as
well as to the counsel in the High Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),
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 appellants-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered
as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the
appellants-applicants were 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 appellants-applicants do not appear before the trial
court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High
Court for cancellation of bail.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
149-150-devrajP/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
