Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Kumar vs The State Of Rajasthan on 7 July, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application
No.1235/2025
in
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1667/2025
1. Ram Kumar S/o Maniram, Aged About 75 Years,
Rohidawali, Ps Hinumalkot, Sriganganagar (At Present
Lodged At Central Jail Sriganganagar)
2. Ram Swaroop S/o Ram Kumar, Aged About 51 Years,
Rohidawali, Ps Hinumalkot, Sriganganagar (At Present
Lodged At Central Jail Sriganganagar)
3. Ravi Kumar S/o Ram Swaroop, Aged About 25 Years,
Rohidawali, Ps Hinumalkot, Sriganganagar (At Present
Lodged At Central Jail Sriganganagar)
4. Ranveer S/o Ram Kumar, Aged About 50 Years,
Rohidawali, Ps Hinumalkot, Sriganganagar (At Present
Lodged At Central Jail Sriganganagar)
----Appellants
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Ms. Kinjal Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, DyGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
07/07/2025
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence under
Section 430 of the BNSS has been moved on behalf of the
appellant-applicants in the matter of judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 27.06.2025 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.5/2025
(2 of 4)
whereby they have been convicted and awarded the maximum
sentence of 7 years' R.I. for the offence under Section 307 or
307/34 of the IPC and lesser sentences for the other offences
under sections 325, 325/34, 323/34 and 341 of the IPC.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that
the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal and
factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous
conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be
appreciated again by this court being the first appellate Court. The
appellants have strong arguable case in his favour. Hearing of the
appeal is likely to take long time, therefore, the application for
suspension of sentence may be granted.
3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-
applicants for releasing the appellant on application for suspension
of sentence.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. Upon consideration of the submission that there was no pre-
meditation, pre-concert or pre-plan and therefore, no intent to kill
the victim, rather the incident took place in a spur of moment and
the victim party were aggressors since they forcibly entered in the
house of the appellants and further considering the submission
that if the injury was caused by a sharp edged weapon, then the
nature of injury must be an incised wound or stab wound,
however, in this case a lacerated wound was observed by the
doctor and therefore, there is a direct conflict in the medical and
ocular evidence and so also that a cross case of the same incident
(3 of 4)
was also lodged in which the appellant party claimed to have been
victimized, thus, the appellants have a strong arguable case in
their favour to challenge the sustainability of their conviction
under Section 307 of the IPC, this court feels it appropriate to
extend the benefit of bail to them. There is no likelihood of
hearing of the appeal on an early date. Thus, considering the
submissions advanced at bar, grounds raised in the memo of
appeal and looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the
case, while refraining from passing any comments on the niceties
of the matter and the defects of the prosecution as the same may
put an adverse effect on hearing of the appeal, this court is of the
opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to
the accused-appellants.
6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 430 of the BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that
the sentence passed by learned trial court, details of which are
mentioned in opening para of this order, against the appellant-
applicants named above shall remain suspended till final disposal
of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail provided
each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 08.08.2025
and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on
the conditions indicated below:-
1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month
of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
(4 of 4)
2. 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.
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 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.
(FARJAND ALI),J
116-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
