The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p v. For

: Mr. Rajendra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay singh Yadav, PP Mr. Lokesh Kumar Verma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 26/05/2025 Order

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellants - Premshankar S/o Ramkishan, Ashok S/o Ramkishan, Shyoji S/o Birdhilal and Monu S/o Mahaveer, in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 28.03.2025 in Sessions (CIS) Case [2025:RJ-JP:22268] (2 of 5) [SOSA-699/2025] No.23/2015 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Bundi whereby appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 341, 323 rws 34, 324 rws 34, 325 rws 34 and 326 rws 34 IPC and sentenced accordingly.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submitted that on the basis of Parchabayan of injured, report was registered and during investigation, statement of this injured was recorded, who later deposed before the trial court and the statement from Pachabayan to the Court clearly reflect that there is improvement from previous version and a serious contradiction about incident. He also submitted that none of the eye-witness has supported the case of prosecution and all of them have turned hostile. He also submitted that injured was examined by medical jurist and there is no opinion to show that injury was intentionally cause by third person. He also referred the medical opinion and submitted that prosecution has failed to prove that injury is grievous and caused by a deadly blow. He further submitted that out of 4 accused, two were granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and two under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and disposal of appeal will take its own time. At last, he submitted that the pending cases shown by learned Public Prosecutor were already disposed of and appellants are not having any criminal antecedent to show that they are persons with criminal background.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. He submitted custody certificates along with report received from concerned [2025:RJ-JP:22268] (3 of 5) [SOSA-699/2025] police station and intimation slip and same are taken on record. Learned counsel for complainant submitted that out of 7 injuries, 6 were fractures and all theses were grievous in nature. He also submitted that there is recovery from possessions of these accused and same was proved by IO. At last, he submitted that appellants are having criminal background therefore this is not a fit case to enlarge appellants on bail.

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

5. On the basis of parchabayan, Ex.P-1 filed by Surajmal, FIR No. 487/2014 at P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Bundi under Sections 307, 394, 341, 323 and 34 IPC. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against appellants. After framing charge, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but they has not submitted any defence evidence but exhibited four documents. Learned trial court has convicted appellants under Sections 341, 323 rws 34, 324 rws 34, 325 rws 34 and 326 rws 34 IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to each of appellant is 7 years.

6. A perusal of record indicated that two accused Ashok and Monu were granted anticipatory bail on 04.02.2015 and on

03.03.2015 in bail application No. 1680/2015 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The accused Prem Shankar and Shyoji were released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on 18.12.2014 by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court. We have considered Parchabayan Ex.P-1, medical of injured Ex.P-2 and Ex.P3. We have considered statement of PW-1 Surajmal, who is an injured. Also considered statement of PW-8 Mustafa who is radiographer. Also considered [2025:RJ-JP:22268] (4 of 5) [SOSA-699/2025] statement of other witnesses. The police has effected recovery from two accused and moreover accused were convicted with aid of Section 34 IPC and disposal of appeal will take its own time.

7. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case to enlarge appellants on bail.

8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellants can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellants accused-Premshankar S/o Ramkishan, Ashok S/o Ramkishan, Shyoji S/o Birdhilal and Monu S/o Mahaveer, is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he 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 his appearance in this court on 10.09.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. After release of appellant 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.

2. That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

3. That if the applicant(s) 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. [2025:RJ-JP:22268] (5 of 5) [SOSA-699/2025]

4. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

9. Misc. Application stands disposed of.

10. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. PREETI VALECHA /24 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J