✦ High Court of India · 28 May 2025

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p v. For

Case Details High Court of India · 28 May 2025

Jagpal S/o Shri Suresh, R/o Madhapura, Police Station Rudawal District Bharatpur (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Sewar)

4. Satyapal son of Shri Suresh R/o Madhapura, Police Station Rudawal District Bharatpur (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Sewar)

5. Darshan S/o Shri Samay Singh, R/o Madhapura, Police Station Rudawal District Bharatpur (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Sewar) State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p Versus ----Petitioners ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 28/05/2025 Order

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellants - Devi Singh S/o Shri Shivcharan, Jawahar S/o Shri Shivcharan, Jagpal S/o Shri Suresh, [2025:RJ-JP:22564] (2 of 5) [SOSA-998/2025] Satyapal son of Shri Suresh and Darshan S/o Shri Samay Singh in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 08.05.2025 in Sessions Case No.69/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,Bayana, Camp Roopwas, Dist. Bharatpur whereby appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 148, 341/149, 323/149, 325/149 and 307/149 IPC and sentenced accordingly.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that appellants are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated. He further referred Parchabayan Ex.P-1 and submitted that report was registered after a delay of one day without explaining delay. He further submitted that in Parchabayan, Devi Singh and Darshan were neither named nor their role or presence was mentioned. He further submitted that afterwards statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded but again both Devi Singh and Darshan were neither named nor involvement alleged. He further submitted that one of the accused Suresh was named for deadly assault and specific allegation was made against him but he expired during pendency of sessions case. He submitted that PW-1 Bhoop Singh has made improvement from his last statement and for injury upon Skull, named Devi Singh and Suresh but neither he named Devi Singh in FIR nor in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He submitted that all other injured PW-2, PW-5 to PW-7 have alleged in a similar manner and their statement is in omnibus style with general allegations. He further referred the cross-examination of PW-18 (IO) and submitted that this is a case of free fight and no specific assignment be made upon any accused about any assault. He [2025:RJ-JP:22564] (3 of 5) [SOSA-998/2025] further submitted that cross FIR was also registered by appellants. He further submitted that no recovery was effected from any of the appellants as they were granted bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in wake of peculiar facts of the case. He also submitted that independent witnesses have turned hostile and prosecution has failed to examine radiologist/radiographer to prove X-ray reports and X-ray Plates. He further referred statement of PW-15 Dr. Sanjay Choudhary and submitted that prosecution has failed to prove that injured has sustained any injury, which is dangerous to life.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificates along with report received from concerned police station and same is taken on record.

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

5. On the basis of parchabayan, Ex.P-1 dated 01.08.2017 filed by PW-1 Bhoo Singh for assault on 31.07.2017, FIR No. 257/2017 under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 504 IPC was registered at P.S. Rudawal, Bharatpur. After investigation, police has filed a charge- sheet against present appellants and Suresh. During trial, Suresh has expired and proceedings were dropped against him. After framing charge, prosecution has examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. The accused werre examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but he has not submitted any defence evidence. Learned trial court has convicted appellant under Sections 148, 341/149, 323/149, 325/149 and 307/149. The maximum sentence awarded to each of appellant is 10 years. [2025:RJ-JP:22564] (4 of 5) [SOSA-998/2025]

6. We have considered statement of injured Bhoop Singh, Dinesh, Suresh, Bhagwan Singh, Sher Singh and Laxmi along with statement of PW-15 Dr. Sanjay Choudhary. The appellants were on bail during trial.

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-Devi Singh S/o Shri Shivcharan, Jawahar S/o Shri Shivcharan, Jagpal S/o Shri Suresh, Satyapal son of Shri Suresh and Darshan S/o Shri Samay Singh, 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 11.09.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. 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.

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 [2025:RJ-JP:22564] (5 of 5) [SOSA-998/2025] 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 /35 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments