Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mukesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 May, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:21752]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                            JODHPUR
      S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application
                          No.724/2025
                               In
             S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 790/2025

 1.      Mukesh Kumar S/o Brij Lal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
         Ward No. 1, Haripura, Ps Sangariya, Teh. Sangariya, Dist.
         Hanumangarh, Raj. (Lodged In Dist. Jail Hanumangarh)
 2.      Raju S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward
         No. 3, Haripura, Ps Sangariya, Teh. Sangariya, Dist.
         Hanumangarh, Raj. (Lodged In Dist. Jail Hanumangarh)
                                                                  ----Appellants
                                    Versus
 State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Achala Ram
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

06/05/2025

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been

moved on behalf of the applicants in the matter of judgment

dated 16.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Sangriya, District Hanumangarh in

Sessions Case No.32/2019 whereby they were convicted and

sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment of 02 years' R.I.

under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.

2. It is contended on behalf of the applicants 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

[2025:RJ-JD:21752] (2 of 3)

appreciated again by this court. 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 on behalf of the accused-applicants

for releasing the appellants on application for suspension of

sentence.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record.

5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties

and looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the

case, more particularly the facts/fact that and the hearing of

appeal is likely to take further more time and considering the

overall submissions 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-

applicants.

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

[2025:RJ-JD:21752] (3 of 3)

for their appearance in this court on 06.06.2025 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.