Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanwar Lal Alias Bhanwara Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:49503) on 17 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:49503]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 2040/2025
Bhanwar Lal Alias Bhanwara Ram S/o Lunaram, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Bhil Basti, Police Station Mohangarh, District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan (Confined In District Jail, Jaisalmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manohar Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Chandawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
17/11/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant as well as
learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on
record.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that the
appellant-applicant has been convicted for offences punishable
under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and has been acquitted for
offence punishable under Section 304-B and 302 of IPC. He
further submits that all independent witnesses have stated that
the appellant-applicant and his wife did not have any verbal scuffle
whatsoever. He further refers to the statement of PW-4 Jetharam
to emphasize that the FIR was lodged at a belated stage after
consultation and the witness had admitted that he did not see any
harassment or cruelty meted out upon the deceased by the
appellant-applicant. He further refers to the statement of PW-4 to
(Uploaded on 17/11/2025 at 04:32:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49503] (2 of 3) [SOSA-2040/2025]
show that the deceased had suicidal tendency and had consumed
poison earlier also for which she was treated. He further refers to
the statement of PW-15 Kheta Ram to emphasize that Kheta Ram
was the person who had got the appellant-applicant married to the
deceased and he has stated that there was no dispute whatsoever
between the husband and wife. He further submits that the
appellant-applicant is behind the bars for almost 3 years out of the
total imprisonment of 5 years simple imprisonment imposed by
the learned Trial Court. He, therefore, implores this Court to allow
the present application for suspension of sentence.
3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
application for suspension of sentence and submits that the
learned Trial Court has considered each and every aspect of the
matter threadbare and thereafter, the conviction order has been
passed, and therefore, the accused-appellant is not entitled for
any indulgence whatsoever.
4. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of
the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, including the consideration of the statements of Jetha
Ram and independent witnesses i.e. neighbors, the accused-
appellant being behind the bars for more than half of the tenure of
the punishment, and the chances of hearing of appeal in near
future being bleak, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case
for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant.
5. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 389 of Cr.P.C./ Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 is
allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the learned
Session Judge, Jaisalmer, vide judgment dated 16.10.2025 in
(Uploaded on 17/11/2025 at 04:32:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49503] (3 of 3) [SOSA-2040/2025]
Session Case No. 39/2023 against the applicant Bhanwar Lal
Alias Bhanwara Ram S/o Lunaram shall remain suspended till
final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on
bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/-, each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this
court on 18.12.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial
Court in the month of January of every year till the
appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of
residence, he/she/they will give in writing
his/her/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.
6. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered
as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the
accused-applicant(s) was/were 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(s) does/do not appear before the
trial Court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the
High Court for cancellation of bail.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
56-charul/-
(Uploaded on 17/11/2025 at 04:32:49 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
