State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p v. Connected

: Ms. Shikha Pranami For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 08/07/2025 Order S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 743/2025:

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant - Shobhraj Son Of Devkaran in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated (2 of 5) [SOSA-743/2025]

21.03.2025 in Sessions Case No.81/2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kishangarh (Ajmer) whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 326/34 and 307/34 IPC and sentenced accordingly.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that appellant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated by injured complainant. She further submitted that appellant is convicted with aid of Section 34 IPC and no direct involvement or assessment of injury was made upon appellant. She further submitted that there is a property dispute between injured PW-6 Bhaskar and accused Rahul Joshi and due to this property dispute accused Rahul and present appellant were falsely implicated. She further referred deposition of PW-2 Laxman and PW-3 Kailash who were named as eye witness by prosecution and submitted that PW-2 has turned hostile whereas testimony of PW-3 is not trustworthy and not sufficient to presume involvement of appellant. She also referred statement of PW-6 Bhaskar and submitted that as per his evidence he was discharged on

14.10.2014 but he has not returned to Kishangarh whereas X-ray was conducted to report about nature of injury suffered by PW-6. She also referred the discrepancies about X-ray and further report of X-ray, has submitted that without visit of injured, X-ray was prepared to show that injury is grievous and dangerous to life. She also referred process of recovery of pharsa and submitted that pharsa was recovered at later stage but was deposited in Malkhana before the recovery and this pharsa was not sent to FSL for examination as police has failed to show that bloodstains were of human or any other. She further submitted that trial court has (3 of 5) [SOSA-743/2025] ignored the material contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence examined by prosecution. At last, she submitted that appellant was on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. He submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. Learned counsel for complainant has referred the evidence on record particularly of injured PW-6 and Ex.P-15 and photograph and submitted that injury is grievous in nature and same is dangerous to life.

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

5. On the basis of report, Ex.P-1 filed by PW-1 Prem Kumar about assault on 27.09.2014 by Rahul Joshi and one unnamed person, FIR No. 322/2014 was registered at P.S. Madanganj, Dist. Ajmer. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against appellant and Rahul. After framing charge, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 39 documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but has not submitted any defence evidence. Learned trial court has convicted Rahul Joshi under Sections 323, 341, 326 and 307 IPC and present appellant under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 326/34 and 307/34 IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to appellant is 10 years.

6. The record suggests that appellant was released on bail in pursuant to order dated 15.12.2014 in bail application No.14054/2014 whereas Rahul Joshi was released on bail in pursuant to order dated 28.10.2014 in bail application No.12160/2014. The appellant was not named in the FIR and was (4 of 5) [SOSA-743/2025] convicted with aid of Section 34 IPC. The main charge is upon Rahul Joshi and argument suggest that there is a property dispute between Rahul Joshi and injured Bhaskar. We have considered Ex.P-8, P-9, P-11 and P-18 as referred by learned counsel for appellant. Also considered Ex.P-15 and photograph as referred by learned counsel for complainant.

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 appellant on bail.

8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellant accused- Shobhraj Son Of Devkaran 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 30.10.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. After release of appellant on bail, he will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that he is involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled.

2. That he 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, he will give in writing his changed (5 of 5) [SOSA-743/2025] address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

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 /50-51 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J