Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sohail Theem vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:45857) on 17 October, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:45857]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1916/2025
Sumit Bohit S/o Naveen Kumar, Aged About 22 Years, Resident
Of Ward No 35, Gandhi Colony, Churu, Rajasthan.
(Currently Lodged At Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1843/2025
Sohail Theem S/o Mahboob Theem, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Ward No. 25, Vyapariyo Ka Mohalla, Churu, Rajasthan.
(Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1917/2025
Sonu Sameer Alias Sonu Shooter S/o Mohammed Rafiq, Aged
About 22 Years, R/o W. No. 25, Bharat Gas Agency, Bharitya
Hospital Road, Churu, District Churu, Rajasthan
(Lodged In Churu Jail)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pravin Vyas
Mr. Hasrshvardhan Singh
Mr. Naresh Khatri
Mr. Shree Kant Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. OP Choudhary
Mr. Kuldeep Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 03:08:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45857] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1916/2025]
17/10/2025
1. Heard learned counsels for the appellants-applicants as well
as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on
record.
2. Learned counsels for the appellants-applicants submit that so
far as the injuries in question are concerned, the Doctor PW-9 has
stated that there was only one grievous injury on non-vital part of
the body of injured Mohd. Ali, and qua Mohd. Rafiq, there were
two grievous injury on the forehead, however, they were not
opined to be dangerous to life in injury report. They further submit
that the Doctor has admitted that there was no endorsement on
any injury report with regard to the injuries being dangerous to
life. They further submit that injured PW-1 and 8 have stated that
they are not aware as to which weapon was used by the accused
and except for omnibus allegations, there are no specific
allegation against any of the accused with regard to causing of
any injury. They further submit that the punishment imposed is 7
years' rigorous imprisonment. Furthermore, they submit that the
appellants-applicants were on bail during the trial and, therefore,
they implore this Court to allow the present applications for
suspension of sentence.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor oppose the applications
for suspension of sentence and submits that the learned Trial
Court has considered the entire evidence threadbare while passing
the conviction order and in that view of the matter, the appellants-
applicants should not be extended the benefit of the suspension of
sentence.
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 03:08:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45857] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1916/2025]
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 maximum punishment
imposed is seven years' rigorous imprisonment, there are various
arguable points raised by learned counsel for the appellants-
applicants with regard to the opinion of the Doctor, except
omnibus allegations, no specific allegation of causing any injury
has been assigned to any particular accused, injured themselves
have stated that they were not aware as to which weapon the
accused were carrying, the appellants-applicants were on bail
during the course of the trial and the chances of hearing of
appeals 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-appellants.
5. Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 430 BNSS (Old Provision Section 389 of Cr.P.C.) are
allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Churu vide judgment dated 29.09.2025 in Session
Case No.159/2022, against the appellants-applicants Sumit Bohit
S/o Naveen Kumar, Sohail Theem S/o Mahboob Theem &
Sonu Sameer Alias Sonu Shooter S/o Mohammed Rafiq shall
remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeals 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 19.11.2025 and whenever
ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeals on the conditions
indicated below:-
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 03:08:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45857] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1916/2025]
1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial
Court in the month of January of every year till the
appeal/s are 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
54-56-charul/-
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 03:08:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
