Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 November, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:48743-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1027/2023
Mukesh S/o Harji, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Dhankawada, P.S.
Saimari Dist. Udaipur Raj. (Lodged In Dist. Jail Jalore )
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Divik Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA
Order
13/11/2025
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted vide
judgment dated 30.05.2023 and sentenced vide judgment dated
31.05.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in
Sessions Case No.52/2021 as below :
Offence Sentence Fine & Sentence in default of
fine
Section 302 IPC Life Rs.25,000/- and in default of
Imprisonment payment of fine 6 months' S.I.
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension
of sentence during the pendency of the appeal and for release on
bail.
3. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 05:16:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48743-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1027/2023]
applicant is that the appellant-applicant was on bail during trial
and it is further submitted that a specific contention of prosecution
is that the accused inflicted knife injury, an injury typically caused
by a sharp edged weapon. However, the postmortem report clearly
indicates that the deceased sustained two injuries caused by a
blunt weapon. Counsel therefore submits that the prosecution's
version of events does not corroborate with the story of
prosecution. Furthermore, counsel points out that the injured
person succumbed to injuries ten days after the incident, and
there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in near future, thus,
the sentence of the applicant be suspended and he be enlarged on
bail.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for
suspension of sentence with the submission that as the appellant-
applicant has committed heinous offence, suspension of sentence
of such offender would send adverse message in the society.
5. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on
record.
6. Looking to the fact that criminal appeals pertaining to year
2008 also are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing
of the present appeal in near future.
7. In the present case as observed herein-before, the appellant-
applicant was on bail during the trial and apparently, there are no
chances of hearing of the present appeal in near future. Except for
the fact that the appellant-applicant was involved in offence
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 05:16:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48743-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1027/2023]
leading to his conviction for life, nothing has been brought on
record by way of extenuating circumstances for denial of
suspension of sentence.
8. Consequently, without making any observations on merits of
the case, we are inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of
the appellant-applicant, namely, Mukesh S/o Harji, during the
pendency of the appeal.
9. 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 Sessions
Judge, Jalore vide order dated 31.05.2023 in Sessions Case
No.52/2021 against the appellant-applicant, namely, Mukesh S/o
Harji shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid
appeal, provided he executes 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 his appearance in this court
on 15.12.2025 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.
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.
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 05:16:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48743-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1027/2023]
10. 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 do not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(SANGEETA SHARMA),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
22-Rashi/-
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 05:16:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
