Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Keshra Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26710) on 28 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:26710]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 810/2025
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.872/2025
1. Keshra Ram S/o Shri Mamraj, Aged About 70 Years,
Resident Of Ravwala, Police Station Bajju, Tehsil Kolayat,
District Bikaner. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail
Bikaner)
2. Shrawan S/o Keshra Ram, Aged About 37 Years, Resident
Of Ravwala, Police Station Bajju, Tehsil Kolayat, District
Bikaner. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner)
3. Khetpal S/o Keshra Ram, Aged About 35 Years, Resident
Of Ravwala, Police Station Bajju, Tehsil Kolayat, District
Bikaner. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner)
4. Dharampal Sister/o Keshra Ram, Aged About 50 Years,
Resident Of Ravwala, Police Station Bajju, Tehsil Kolayat,
District Bikaner. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail
Bikaner)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
28/05/2025
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been
moved on behalf of the applicants in the matter of judgment dated
28.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.6,
Bikaner in Sessions Case No.50/2020 whereby they were
[2025:RJ-JD:26710] (2 of 4) [SOSA-810/2025]
convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment of
seven years of RI along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section
307 read with 149 of IPC, 326 read with 149 of IPC and lesser
punishment for the other offences under Sections 325 read with
149 of IPC, 324 read with 149 of IPC, 323 read with 149 of IPC,
341 read with 149 of IPC, 147 and 148 of 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 were on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty
so granted to them; 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
record of the case, more particularly, the statements of victim,
Medical Officer - P.W.-6 (Dr. Satyanaryan) and P.W.-7 (Dr. Madhav
Sharma). There seems substance in the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellants that had there been an intent of the
appellants to kill victim then as per the allegations, if they had
lethal weapon with them then why the victim had been left
without causing serious injuries on vital parts of the body. Of
course, the defence argument is worth considerable. A perusal of
[2025:RJ-JD:26710] (3 of 4) [SOSA-810/2025]
the statement of P.W-6 (Dr. Satyanarayan) revealing that the
victim - Dharam Pal received three injuries, none of which, found
to be dangerous to life. Victim - Sharwan sustained two injuries;
one was on temporal region but of simple in nature and the other
was small linear abrasion. Victim - Khet Pal was having
tenderness on chest but of simple nature. The aforesaid victims
are the members of appellant party. Statement of P.W.-7 (Dr.
Madhav Sharma) revealing injuries to victim Bheya Ram and
fracture on metatarsal. It seems that there was a free fight in
which both the parties have sustained injuries and who were
aggressors cannot be adjudicated at this stage but a duty would
cast upon this Court to re-examine the entire evidence for this
purpose. Hearing of the appeal would likely to take a long time.
5. In view of the above and considering that during the entire
course of trial, they remained on bail and did not misuse the
liberty so granted to them, 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 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentence passed by learned trial court, the details of which are
provided in the first 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 their appearance in this
[2025:RJ-JD:26710] (4 of 4) [SOSA-810/2025]
court on 30.06.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
1. That they will appear before the trial Court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicants change the place of residence,
they will give in writing 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 accused-applicants 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 applicants do 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
2-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
