Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bularam Alias Raju vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:38201) on 27 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:38201]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1447/2025
1. Bularam Alias Raju S/o Gokulram, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Rupathal Ps Kuchera District Nagaur (Presently
Lodged At District Jail Nagaur)
2. Kisanaram S/o Gokulram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Rupathal Ps Kuchera District Nagaur (Presently Lodged At
District Jail Nagaur)
3. Smt Lali W/o Ghanshyam Alias Pappuram, Aged About 45
Years, R/o Nimbola District Nagaur (Presently Lodged At
District Jail Nagaur)
4. Bunty S/o Pappuram @ Ghanshyam, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Nimbola District Nagaur (Presently Lodged At
District Jail Nagaur)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
27/08/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-applicants as well
as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on
record.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants-applicants submits that as
far as the case in hand is concerned the appellant-applicants have
been convicted for the offences under Sections 326 with the aid of
Section 149 of IPC and the punishment imposed is 7 years'
[2025:RJ-JD:38201] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1447/2025]
rigorous imprisonment. Learned counsel further submits that the
main allegation against the appellant No.1- Bularam @ Raju is of
inflicting injury with a sword and there are no allegations against
the other co-appellants. He further submits that from a perusal of
the injury report i.e Exh.P-16 as well as the opinion of the doctor
i.e. Exh.P-17 will reveal that only one injury was found to be
grievous in nature and that too was inflicted upon the right elbow
and not on the vital part of the body. He further submits that the
recovery has been effected from appellant No.1- Bularam @ Raju,
however, the sword, which has been recovered vide Exh.P-8,
shows that there was no handle upon the sword to hold it and,
therefore, no injury could have been inflicted by the sword in
question. He further submits that the appellants-applicants were
on bail during the course of trial and there is no chance of hearing
of the appeal in near future. In these circumstances, he prayed
that the application for suspension for sentence filed by
appellants-applicants be allowed.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for
suspension of sentence and submits that the learned trial Court
after considering the fact that even one injury was there and, the
same being grievous in nature, as also, considering the evidence
of Dr. Anil Barupal (PW-11) has rightly convicted the appellant.
He, thus, submits that looking to the nature of offence, the
sentence of the appellants does not deserve to be suspended.
4. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of
the both the sides, perusal of record and having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that only
one injury was found to be grievous in nature and that too was on
[2025:RJ-JD:38201] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1447/2025]
non vital body part as well as considering the fact that the
recovery of the sword itself creates a doubt as to whether the
alleged sword could be used for committing the offence in
question, as also considering the fact that appellants-applicants
were on bail during the course of trial and appellant No.1 has
remained behind the bars for almost a period of six months and
also there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in near future, this
Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the
sentences awarded to the accused appellants-applicants.
5. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 430 of BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,
Nagaur, vide judgment dated 21.07.2025 in Sessions Case
No.58/2013 (CIS No.290/2014), arising out of FIR No.47/2013 at
Police Station Kuchera, District Nagaur, against the appellants-
applicants namely; (1) Bularam Alias Raju S/o Gokulram, (2)
Kisanaram S/o Gokulram (3) Smt Lali W/o Ghanshyam
Alias Pappuram and (4) Bunty S/o Pappuram @
Ghanshyam, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the
aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided each
of them execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with
two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to 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
[2025:RJ-JD:38201] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1447/2025]
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.
6. 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
165-mohit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
