Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 22 May, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:24931-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 238/2025
1. Dinesh S/o Thavra, Aged About 27 Years, Village Maval, P.s.
Abu Road RIICO, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In Sub
Jail, Abu Road)
2. Lalit S/o Thavra, Aged About 26 Years, Village Maval, P.s. Abu
Road RIICO, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail,
Abu Road)
3. Prakash S/o Thavra, Aged About 21 Years, Village Maval, P.s.
Abu Road RIICO, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In Sub
Jail, Abu Road).
4. Vikram S/o Thavra, Aged About 28 Years, Village Maval, P.s.
Abu Road RIICO, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In Sub
Jail, Abu Road).
5. Kailash S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 26 Years, Village Maval,
P.s. Abu Road RIICO, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In
Sub Jail, Abu Road).
6. Dinesh S/o Phula Ji, Aged About 32 Years, Village Maval, P.s.
Abu Road RIICO, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In Sub
Jail, Abu Road)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Dayal Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
22/05/2025
1. The appellants-applicants herein have been convicted and
sentenced as below vide judgment dated 30.07.2024 passed by
the learned Additional Session Judge No.2, Abu Road, District
[2025:RJ-JD:24931-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-238/2025]
Sirohi in Sessions Case No.8/2022 whereby the accused-
appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offence
under Sections 148, 323/149, 452, 302, 302/149 of IPC.
2. The appellants-applicants have preferred the application for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension
of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and for release on
bail.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken this Court to
the statement of PW2, Mahendra, son of deceased, who has
stated that on 12.04.2020, while he was at home, Dinesh son of
Thanwara, Dinesh S/o Phula, Kailash son of Bhanwar, Vikram son
of Thanwara, Lalit son of Thanwara arrived and strangulated his
father, Bhanwar Lal. He submits that PW-2 attributed injuries
caused to himself and his cousin, Pukhraj, to Dinesh and Kailash.
3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation against
Dinesh and Veera Ram of having strangulated the father of PW-2
collapsed the moment the story was changed during cross-
examination and Veera Ram was excluded from the allegation.
3.2 Learned counsel also submits that during cross-examination,
PW-2, a key witness, admitted he was neither present at the
incident site nor aware of the motive behind the crime, citing no
prior animosity between the accused and the complainant's party.
He further submits that this was the best eyewitness and the rest
of the witnesses also testified that the FIR was written in a
different context and there was a difference between the version
of the witnesses and the FIR.
[2025:RJ-JD:24931-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-238/2025]
3.3 Learned counsel further submits that the accused appellant
Dinesh has undergone a custody of around five years and the rest
of the aforesaid accused have undergone much lesser custody.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for
suspension of sentence.
5. This Court, on examining the witnesses with focus on witness
PW-2, who is the son of the deceased and is also injured, as well
as considering the prolonged custody of Dinesh and the fact that
the FIR and facts narrated by the critical witness do not correlate
at some points, deems it appropriate to suspend the substantive
sentence of the appellant-applicant during the pendency of the
appeal.
6. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
ordered that substantive sentence passed by the learned
Additional Session Judge No.2, Abu Road, District Sirohi in
Sessions Case No.8/2022, against the appellants-applicants,
namely, (1) Dinesh S/o Thavra, (2) Lalit S/o Thavra, (3)
Prakash S/o Thavra, (4) Vikram S/o Thavra, (5) Kailash S/
o Bhanwar Lal, & (6) Dinesh S/o Phula Ji, 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.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/-
each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for their appearance
in this court on 03.07.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till
the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:
[2025:RJ-JD:24931-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-238/2025]
1. That he will appear before the trial court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is
decided.
2. That if the applicant change 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 relating 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 been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to
pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial court. In case the
said accused-applicant does not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
27-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
