[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kapil Budania vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 23 March, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:13632-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 2260/2025
Kapil Budania S/o Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 27 Years,
Village Dhudwakhara, At Present W.no. 11, Sainik Basti, Churu,
Dist. Churu. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Bikaner).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Arun Choudhary S/o Shri Hanuman Choudhary, R/o
Kishanpura, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District Sikar
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary with
Mr. S.S. Gour
Mr. Jitendra Singh Bhanwariya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
23/03/2026
1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and
sentenced vide judgment dated 23.05.2023 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarshahar, District Churu in
Sessions Case No.01/2021 (226/2018).
2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension
of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and for release on
bail.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that
similarly placed co-accused Jinendra Singh and Nitesh Jyani have
been accorded the benefit of suspension of sentence by this Court
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 05:22:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13632-DB] (2 of 4) [SOSA-2260/2025]
vide orders dated 14.11.2025 and 25.09.2024 in D.B. Criminal
Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1659/2025
and No. 956/2024 respectively. It is further submitted that the
case of the present appellant-applicant is not distinguishable from
that of the said co-accused and accordingly, the appellant-
applicant may also be accorded the benefit of suspension of
sentence on the same parity.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant further submits
that the date of arrest of co-accused Jinendra Singh was
10.01.2019, whereas the present appellant-applicant has been in
custody since 12.08.2018. He further submits that neither the
present appellant-applicant nor the said co-accused Jinendra
Singh was named in the FIR. He further submits that Exhibit 8 was
shown qua co-accused Jinendra Singh at the police station, and
the same position obtains in the case of the present appellant-
applicant, though qua him it is Exhibit 7. He further submits that
the iron rod recovered in the case of the present appellant-
applicant was sent for FSL examination , unlike in the case of co-
accused Jinendra Singh where the same was not sent for FSL,
however, the FSL report did not detect the presence of blood
thereon. It is submitted that in all other material aspects, the
contentions and the factual matrix of the present appellant-
applicant's case are identical to that of the said co-accused.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor, though opposing the application
for suspension of sentence, fairly concedes that the factual matrix
in the case of the present appellant-applicant and that of both the
aforesaid co-accused are on the same footing and are
substantially identical.
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 05:22:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13632-DB] (3 of 4) [SOSA-2260/2025]
6. This Court, upon a conjoint consideration of the material on
record, particularly the fact that the appellant-applicant has been
in continuous judicial custody since 12.08.2018 and that the case
of the present appellant-applicant stands on the same parity as
that of co-accused Jinendra Singh and Nitesh Jyani, whose
sentences have already been suspended by this Court, deems it
appropriate to suspend the substantive sentence of the appellant-
applicant during the pendency of the appeal.
7. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of
sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
ordered that substantive sentence passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sardarshahar, District Churu in Sessions Case
No.01/2021 (226/2018), against the appellant-applicant, namely,
Kapil Budania S/o Shri Ashok Kumar, 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.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the
satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court
on 27.04.2026 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of
the appeal on the conditions indicated below:
1. That he will appear before the trial court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is
decided.
2. That if the applicant change 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.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s)
they will give in writing their changed address to the
trial court.
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 05:22:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13632-DB] (4 of 4) [SOSA-2260/2025]
8. 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 relating 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 been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to
pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial court. In case the
said accused-applicant does not appear before the trial court,
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
95-Sudheer/-
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 05:22:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
