Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh Kumar @ Vicky vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 23 September, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:42503-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1589/2025
Mukesh Kumar @ Vicky S/o Shri Sohan Lal, R/o Ward No. 20,
Uco Bank Wali Gali, Hanumangarh Town, Hanumangarh.
(Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Applicant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order
23/09/2025
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant-
appellant under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') (430 of the Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) seeking suspension of sentence
awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,
Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') vide
judgment dated 29.01.2025 passed in Sessions Case No.04/2019
(CIS No.78/2019) whereby following sentences have been
awarded against the accused-applicant.
S.No Offence Sentence Fine
1. 302/34 Life Imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-; in
IPC default thereof to further
undergo one month's S.I.
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 04:06:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42503-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-1589/2025]
2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that the
case of the present applicant-appellant is similar to the co-accused
Kusum in whose case application for suspension of sentence has
already been allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 04.07.2025 and the case of the present applicant-
appellant is not distinguishable from the case of the co-accused
Kusum. He further submits that Kusum is mother of the present
applicant-appellant and deceased Sohan Lal was father of the
present appellant. He further submits that the case of the present
appellant stands on better footing than the case of Kusum,
therefore, the present applicant-appellant should be given the
similar treatment. He, therefore, prays that the application for
suspension of sentence may kindly be allowed.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has though opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant-
appellant but he is unable to distinguish the case of the present
applicant-appellant with the case of co-accused Kusum.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
upon a consideration of the arguments advanced and considering
the fact that the case of the present applicant-appellant is
identical to co-accused aforesaid in whose case the application for
suspension of sentence has already been allowed.
5. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
by the applicant-appellant is hereby allowed. It is ordered that the
sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,
Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 29.01.2025 in Sessions Case
No.04/2019 (CIS No.78/2019) against the applicant-appellant -
Mukesh Kumar @ Vicky S/o Shri Sohan Lal 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.1,00,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 04:06:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42503-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-1589/2025]
satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this
Court on 27.10.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
(i) That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of
January of every year till the appeal is decided.
(ii) That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will
give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to
the counsel in the High Court.
(iii) Similarly, if the sureties change their address, 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 accused-
applicant was 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 does not appear before the trial court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
7. Needless to state that the observations made hereinabove in
relation to guilt or otherwise of the applicant is prima-facie opinion
considering the material to the extent necessary for the purpose
of consideration of instant application. None of the parties shall
rely upon the findings or observations made herein at the time of
arguing final hearing of the appeal.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
24-Payal/-
(Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 04:06:01 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
