State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp v. For

Puneet Chaudhary Alias Gopu Son Of Shri Gyanendra Chaudhary, Resident Of House Number 204, Madan Badi Naya Kheda Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Presently The Accused Appellants Are Lodged In Central Jail Jaipur)

4. Robby Choudhary Son Of Yogesh Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of House Number 204, Madan Badi Naya Kheda Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Presently The Accused Appellants Are Lodged In Central Jail Jaipur) State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp Versus ----Petitioners ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harsh Joshi and Mr. Rajendra Singh Rajawat for Mr. Deepak Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Dheeraj Singhal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order [2025:RJ-JP:17680] (2 of 6) [SOSA-491/2025] 25/04/2025

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellants-Rajeshwari Devi Wife Of Shri Gyanendra Singh Chaudhary, Pawan Choudhary Son Of Shri Gyanendra Choudhary, Puneet Chaudhary Alias Gopu Son Of Shri Gyanendra Chaudhary and Robby Choudhary Son Of Yogesh Kumar aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 18.02.2025 in Sessions Case No.94/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur whereby appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 325/34, 323/34, 341 IPC and sentenced accordingly.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants while referring the record and judgment of trial court has submitted that these accused were convicted under Sections 341, 323/34 and 325/34 IPC and maximum sentence awarded to each of appellant is 5 years. He further referred the FIR and submitted that the report was registered after a delay of 2 days and no sufficient explanation was offered by the prosecution about delay. He also referred evidence of eye-witnesses and injured and submitted that as per them, police has reached at the spot at the time of incident and injured were taken to hospital by police van but even availability of police the report was registered after a delay of 2 days. He also referred the evidence on record and submitted that there is previous animosity between the parties and same is admitted by the witnesses. He further referred the prosecution evidence and submitted that appellants have strong case to challenge the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. At last, he [2025:RJ-JP:17680] (3 of 6) [SOSA-491/2025] submitted that appellants were on bail during trial and never misused the liberty granted to them.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. He submitted custody certificates along with criminal antecedents and report received from concerned police station and same are taken on record. Learned counsel for complainant while referring the evidence of PW-2 injured and PW-16 Dr. P.C. Meena has submitted that injured has sustained grievous injuries and same is sufficient to show that the injured has sustained grievous and life threatening injuries. He also referred statement of PW-17 Dr. Pradeep Goyal and PW-19 Mahesh Chand and indicated that injured has sustained grievous injuries.

4. Heard learned counsel for parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

5. On the basis of report submitted by complainant Dinesh Choudhary Ex.P-2, FIR No.249/2015 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 and 382 IPC was registered at P.S. Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (North). After investigation, police has filed charge- sheet against four accused under Sections 341, 323, 307/34 IPC. During trial, prosecution has examined 25 witnesses and exhibited 35 documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they have submitted one evidence of Gyanendra Singh as DW-1 and exhibited 12 documents. The trial court has acquitted appellants from charge under Section 307/34 IPC but convicted them under Sections 341, 323/34 and 325/34 IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to each of appellants is five years. [2025:RJ-JP:17680] (4 of 6) [SOSA-491/2025]

6. We have considered the statement of PW-2 Dinesh Choudhary, PW-17 Dr. P.C. Meena, PW-17 Dr. Pradeep Goyal and PW-19 Mahesh Chand. Also considered statement of other witnesses. The trial court was of the view that the injuries Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 were of grievous nature but none of them is dangerous to life. The trial court has also considered reasons of delay and opined that injured was under treatment and delay is explained. The reason of assault is also considered by the trial court and the previous animosity and cases were reason of assault by accused party. The statement of PW-16 Dr. P.C. Meena indicated that after examination of injured, PW-2 Dinesh, when he was admitted in SMS hosiptal, he has prepared injury report Ex.P-13 and there were 11 injuries. Injury No.1 on right lower leg, Injury No.2 on left lower leg, Injury No.3 on left upper limb and injury No.5 on left little finger were found to be grievous.

7. The appellants were on bail during trial. A perusal of record also indicated that five criminal cases against Pawan Choudhary, three against Puneet and one against Robby Choudhary out of above, one case is present case thus four other cases relating to assault were registered against Pawan Choudhary wherein charge- sheet has been filed and two other cases against Punnet wherein charge-sheet has been filed.

8. Having gone through the criminal background of one of the appellants Pawan Choudhary in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the law relating to grant or refusal of bail while referring other judgments, therefore I am of considered view that herein this case [2025:RJ-JP:17680] (5 of 6) [SOSA-491/2025] accused Pawan Choudhary is not entitled for bail in the instant case but other three persons Rajeshwari Devi Wife Of Shri Gyanendra Singh Chaudhary, Puneet Chaudhary Alias Gopu Son Of Shri Gyanendra Chaudhary and Robby Choudhary Son Of Yogesh Kumar are entitled to be released on bail.

9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein three appellants can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellants accused- Rajeshwari Devi Wife Of Shri Gyanendra Singh Chaudhary, Puneet Chaudhary Alias Gopu Son Of Shri Gyanendra Chaudhary and Robby Choudhary Son Of Yogesh Kumar is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of them would executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 05.08.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. That the appellants accused shall not contact or connect directly or indirectly with injured or any of his family member.

2. After release of appellants on bail, they will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that they are involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled.

3. That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. [2025:RJ-JP:17680] (6 of 6) [SOSA-491/2025]

4. That if the applicants changes the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

5. Similarly, if the sureties change their addresses, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

10. The SOS application filed on behalf of appellant Pawan Choudhary is hereby dismissed.

11. Misc. Application stands disposed of.

12. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. PREETI VALECHA /32 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J