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

: Mr. Munesh Bharadwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nripendra Sinsinwar Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 01/07/2025 Order

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant-accused – Bhanendra Singh son of Vasudev in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 10.03.2025 in Sessions Case No.39/2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bayana, District-Bharatpur whereby appellant No.1 was convicted for offence under Section 323/34, 336, 341, 325 and 307 IPC and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were convicted under Sections 323/34, 336/34 and 341 IPC and sentenced accordingly. By this order, we [2025:RJ-JP:24209] (2 of 5) [SOSA-870/2025] are considering SOS application of Bhanendra Singh son of Vasudev.

2. Learned counsel for appellant-accused Bhanendra Singh while relying upon grounds of appeal has submitted that appellant is an innocent person and falsely implicated by complainant. He further submitted that this appellant is convicted for a period of 10 years under Section 307 IPC, but was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He also submitted that the place of incident is house of accused and the incident is due to sudden provocation and appellant has a right of self-defense. He further submitted that as per prosecution, the injured was taken to Roopwas and then to SMS Hospital, Jaipur, but there is no record to show that victim was ever treated at CHC Roopwas. He also submitted that the medical report was prepared 22 days after the incident and there is no record of medical treatment including CT scan. The counsel further submitted that the complainant party were aggressors and they came to the house of appellant and in their report, they alleged that by injury was a result of stone pelting by the accused but no recovery was effected. At last he submitted that appellant was acquitted from all other cases where he was falsely implicated.

3. Aforesaid Contentions were opposed by learned counsel for complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that PW-18, who is a surgeon, has explained the nature of injury caused upon injured by appellant accused and in para no. 42 and 44 of the judgment learned trial court has elaborately dealt the issue. He also submitted that the [2025:RJ-JP:24209] (3 of 5) [SOSA-870/2025] entire record is filed on record and the nature of injury clearly indicate gravity of assault. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted report received from PS Roopwas along with other criminal antecedents of petitioner.

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

5. On the basis of Report Exhibit P-2, lodged by PW4 Ramvati, FIR No. 409/2013 was registered at PS Roopwas on 22.08.2013 for incident of 21.08.2013 under Sections 143, 323, 341, and 336 IPC. After investigation, police has filed charge sheet against accused Bhanendra, Ravindra, Narayani and Sudha. Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Bayana has framed charge under sections 323 alternatively 323/34, 336 or 336/34, 341, 325 and 307 IPC against the appellant – Bhanendra Singh but has framed charge under section 323 or 323/34, 336 or 336/34 and 341 IPC against remaining 3 accused. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents, whereas accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC but they have not submitted any defence evidence and exhibited nine documents in defence. Present petitioner-accused was convicted under Sections 323/34, 336, 341, 325 and 307 IPC but remaining three accused under section 323/34, 336/34 and 341 IPC. The trial court has convicted appellant with maximum sentence of 10 years under Section 307 IPC but extended benefit of probation to remaining three accused.

6. During investigation, police arrested appellant-Bhanendra Singh on 15.10.2013 but in pursuant to bail order dated

06.01.2014 in Bail Application No. 125/2014 by a co-ordinate [2025:RJ-JP:24209] (4 of 5) [SOSA-870/2025] bench of this court, the accused is released on bail. The appellant is in custody since 10.03.2025 and out of awarded sentence he has already undergone more than 6 months. As per police, three more cases were registered against the appellant-Bhanendra Singh and out of which one was disposed of by way of compromise but in another case arising out of FIR No. 562/2016, the appellant was acquitted on 17.02.2025 in Sessions Case No. 83/2017 by Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Bayana. There is no whereabouts of 3rd Case No. 418/2012.

7. We have considered the statement of PW-18 Dr. Ashok who conducted surgery on 23.08.2013 and exhibited surgery record Exhibit P-13. We have also considered injury report Exhibit P-9 prepared by PW-15 Dr. Rupendra Jha. The injured was examined as PW-11, before the Trial Court. Considered the evidence of other prosecution witnesses.

8. Having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the disposal of appeal will take its own time and appellant was on bail during trial, it is appropriate to allow SOS application.

9. Considering the fact that appellants were on bail and disposal of appeal will take its own time, therefore application under Section 430(1) of BNSS. is allowed and sentence of appellants accused- Bhanendra Singh Son Of Vasudev, is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would execute 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 16.10.2025 and [2025:RJ-JP:24209] (5 of 5) [SOSA-870/2025] 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 changes the place of residence, he will give in writing their 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.

4. After release on bail, he will not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence but if found involved in any criminal case then this SOS order may be recalled or cancelled.

10. Misc. Application stands disposed of. PREETI VALECHA /11 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J