Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Saleem @ Malkiya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:44246) on 8 October, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:44246]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1357/2025
1. Saleem @ Malkiya S/o Sh. Gulam Ali, Aged About 32 Years,
Kedar Chawk Ward No 04 Near Patakha Factory Purani Aabadi Ps
Purani Aabadi District Sriganganagar.
2. Kalu Khan alias Kasam Ali S/o Sh. Mannu Khan, Aged about
34 years, R/o Kedar Chowk, Ward No.04, Near Patakha Factory,
Purani Abadi, PS Purani Abadi, District Sriganganagar.
(At present lodged in Dist. Jail Sriganganagar)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Saharan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. Omprakash Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
08/10/2025
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant
have been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years. He further
submits that the appellants were on bail during the course of the
trial and has not misused the liberty so granted. Learned counsel
further contends that there is no likelihood of the appeal being
heard in the near future. In support of the appellants' case,
reliance has been placed on Exhibits P-38 and P-39, being the
injury report and the X-ray report, respectively, which indicate
that the injuries sustained by the injured are on the hand and are
(Uploaded on 08/10/2025 at 06:18:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44246] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1357/2025]
simple in nature. It is further asserted that neither the Doctor nor
the Radiologist has been examined by the prosecution, thereby
casting serious doubt on the nature and gravity of the injuries
allegedly sustained. Moreover, the only recovery alleged against
the appellant No.1 is that of a pistol and no recovery effected from
appellant No.2. In this regard, reference is made to the
statements of PW-13 and PW-14, which reveal that the recovery
was effected from a patakha factory premises and not from the
residence of the appellants, thereby negating any direct or active
role of the appellants in the alleged incident. In view of the
aforementioned facts and circumstances, he prays that the
sentence awarded to the appellants may be suspended during the
pendency of the appeal and they may be released on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for
suspension of sentence.
Upon due consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf
of the appellants and having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case, including the facts that neither the Doctor nor the
Radiologist has been examined by the prosecution, thereby
casting serious doubt on the nature and gravity of the injuries
allegedly sustained, the alleged recovery of the firearm from the
appellant No.1 in connection with the firing of two bullets is
shrouded in doubts and inconsistent with the statements of the
prosecution witnesses, the appellants were on bail throughout the
trial and that there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in
the near future, this Court is of the opinion that the present case
is fit for the suspension of the sentence awarded to the accused-
appellants.
(Uploaded on 08/10/2025 at 06:18:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44246] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1357/2025]
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 430 of BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentence passed by the learned Additional Session Judge No.2,
District Sri Ganganagar, vide judgment dated 27.06.2025 in
Session Case No.15/2018 against the applicants (1) Saleem @
Malkiya S/o Sh. Gulam Ali and (2) Kalu Khan alias Kasam
Ali S/o Sh. Mannu Khan, 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.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this
court on 10.11.2025 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.
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
(Uploaded on 08/10/2025 at 06:18:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44246] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1357/2025]
case the said accused applicant(s) does 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
70-Mrityunjay Rathore/-
(Uploaded on 08/10/2025 at 06:18:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
