Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxminarayan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:45864) on 17 October, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:45864]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1976/2025
Laxminarayan S/o Bhomaram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of
Minda, Police Station Maroth, District Nagaur (Rajasthan)
(Presently Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1977/2025
Heeralal S/o Nanagram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No.5,
Kishangarh Renwal, Police Station Renwal, District Jaipur Rural
(Rajasthan)
(Presently Confined In Central Jail Ajmer.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1978/2025
Prithviraj S/o Bhomaram, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of
Minda, Police Station Maroth, District Nagaur (Rajasthan)
(Presently Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
17/10/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-applicants as well
as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on
record.
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 03:32:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45864] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1976/2025]
2. Learned counsel for the appellants-applicants submits that as
far as the appellants-applicants are concerned, as against Heera
Lal, the allegation is that he had caused the head injury, which, as
per the opinion of the Doctor, has been shown to be simple in
nature. He further submits that as far as the other appellants-
applicants are concerned i.e. Laxminarayan & Prithviraj, no
specific injury has been assigned to them. He also asserts that as
per the Doctor PW-20 only injuries No.1 and 2 were found to be
grievous in nature, which were on the non-vital part of the body.
He further submits that except for recovery of certain amount and
wooden sticks, no recovery has been effected from the appellants-
applicants. He further submits that the appellants-applicants have
been convicted under Section 392 of IPC with 5 years' rigorous
imprisonment and under Section 307/34 of IPC with 10 years'
rigorous imprisonment. He further submits that the appellants-
applicants were on bail during the course of trial. He further
submits that the hearing of the appeals will take time and,
therefore, implores this Court to allow suspension of sentence
applications.
3. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
applications for suspension of sentence and submits the fact that
considering the nature of the offence as well as there being
conviction under Sections 392 and 307/34 of IPC, the accused-
applicants do not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
4. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of
both sides and after having perused the record of the case,
including the facts that no recovery except wooden sticks have
been effected from the present appellants-applicants, there are
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 03:32:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45864] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1976/2025]
arguable points with regard to the nature of the injury caused,
there is grievous injury on non-vital part of the body and there is
no specific assignment of any injury upon any of the accused-
appellants, except for one Heeralal, who has been assigned an
injury, which was found to be simple in nature, the appellants-
applicants were on bail during the course of trial, and the chances
of hearing of the appeals in near future being bleak, this Court
deems it appropriate to suspend 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
Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchaman City, District Didwana -
Kuchaman, vide judgment dated 17.09.2025 and order of
Sentence Dated 19.09.2025 in Sessions Case No.83/2021
(20/2017), against the appellants-applicants Laxminarayan S/o
Bhomaram, Heeralal S/o Nanagram & Prithviraj S/o
Bhomaram shall remain suspended till final disposal of the
aforesaid appeals and they shall be released on bail, provided
each of them executes 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:-
1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial
Court in the month of January of every year till the
appeal/s is/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.
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 03:32:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45864] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1976/2025]
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
57-59-charul/-
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 03:32:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
