Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harchand vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:44667) on 10 October, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:44667]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1440/2025
Harchand S/o Shri Jawaram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Somta,
Police Station Ramseen, District Jalore Rajasthan
(At Present Lodged In District Jail Jalore)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Kesaram S/o Shri Sarupaji, R/o Thoor, Police Station
Ramseen, District Jalore
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandrasen Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
10/10/2025
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 in
the statements of prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C., not even a single allegation
has been levelled against the accused-appellant, rather she has
stated that she went along with the accused-appellant at her own
violation. He asserts that the prosecutrix has changed her version
when she was examined before the Court as PW-7, however, she
has admitted the fact that she stayed with the accused-appellant
for 6 months and travelled various places including Sayla to
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 07:50:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44667] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1440/2025]
Sindhari, Balotra, Jodhpur, Hubli etc. He further asserts that the
prosecutrix did not raise any hue and cry in front of anybody
during this period, as also, admitted that when her statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, the present accused-
appellant was not present at that time, while emphasizing that the
statement was not recorded under the pressure of the accused-
appellant. He further submits that the punishment imposed
against the accused-appellant is 5 years simple imprisonment
under Sections 366 and 363 of IPC and the learned Trial Court
itself has not found any case under POCSO Act or SC/ST Act. He
further asserts that the accused-appellant was on bail during the
course of trial and is behind the bars since 17.07.2025. He,
therefore, implores this Court to allow the present application for
suspension of sentence.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application
for suspension of sentence and submits that the prosecutrix in her
statement before the Court, has specifically alleged the offence in
question as against the accused-appellant and the learned Trial
Court has rightly convicted the accused-appellant, therefore, the
accused-appellant does not deserve to be enlarged the benefit of
suspension of sentence.
4. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of
both the sides and having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, including the facts that the prosecutrix has completely
changed her version, as also considering the fact that when she
was examined before the Court, she has admitted that she had
travelled to various places along with accused-appellant and
stayed with the accused-appellant for a period of 6 months, as
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 07:50:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44667] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1440/2025]
also she admitting that she gave her earlier statement (not
impleading the accused-appellant) without any pressure and at
that time the accused-appellant was not present, the chances of
hearing the present 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./430 of BNSS is allowed and it is
ordered that the sentence passed by the learned Special Judge,
SC/ST Cases, Jalore, vide judgment dated 17.07.2025 in Sessions
Case No.149/2019 (CIS No.62/2016) against the appellant-
applicant, Harchand S/o Shri Jawaram, 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 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.
6. 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 related to original case in which the appellant-
applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 07:50:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44667] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1440/2025]
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
appellant-applicant 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
43-charul/-
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 07:50:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
