State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p v. For

: Mr. Dron Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 30/05/2025 Order

1. Instant SOS application is preferred by appellants accused— Rameshwar Son Of Ram Narayan, Chintu @ Kuldeep [2025:RJ-JP:22876] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1040/2025] Son Of Rajendra Prasad, Balkishan @ Madiya Son Of Ram Pratap, Krishanmurari Son Of Jagannath, Rajendra Of Of Ramswaroop & Mahendra Son Of Jagannath in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.04.2025 in sessions case no. 7/2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge no.2, Baran whereby these appellants accused were convicted and sentenced under Sections 148, 341, 323, or 323/149, 325/149 and 307 or 307/149 IPC and sentenced accordingly but maximum sentence awarded to each of appellant is seven years.

2. Learned counsel for appellants submits that appellants are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated. He further submitted that as per report lodged by PW-8 Manoj several persons have assaulted Akhilesh and on the basis of information a report was registered. He also submitted that there is serious contradiction in the statement of Manoj and injured Akhilesh. He also submitted that no person other than Manoj and Akhilesh were examined to corroborate the incident. He also submitted that the statement of Akhilesh clearly indicate that Manoj was not an eye-witness and PW-9 Manoj is not an eye-witness, then only injured PW-1 is sole witness then the testimony of PW-1 injured must be sterling worth but the discrepancies in the statement of PW-1 is sufficient to discredit his evidence. He also referred the findings of trial court and submitted that all these appellants were convicted with aid and assistance of Section 149 IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:22876] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1040/2025] He further submitted that no specific assignment or attribution about any specific assault or injury was made upon any of appellants. He further referred the cross- examination of other witnesses and material on record and submitted that the appellants are innocent and they were falsely implicated. At last, he submitted that all these appellants were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submitted custody certificate of Rameshwar and same is taken on record.

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

5. On the basis of report Ex. P/5 lodged by PW-8 Manoj Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 204/2013 was registered at P.S. Anta, District Baran under Sections 143, 323 and 307 IPC. After investigation police has filed a charge-sheet against 7 persons including six of present appellant. After taking cognizance the trial court has proceeded to record evidence of prosecution. After framing the charge the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and exhibited 42 documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C but they have not submitted any defence evidence though exhibited one document Ex. D/1.

6. The trial court has convicted 7 persons including present six under Sections 307 or 307/149, 148, 341, 323 or 323/149, [2025:RJ-JP:22876] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1040/2025] 325 or 325/149 IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to each of appellant is seven years.

7. We have considered statement of injured victim PW-1 Akhilesh and also considered statement of PW-8 Manoj Kumar Chauhan who is named as an eye-witness. We have considered cross-examination of PW-1 Akhilesh. Also considered statement of PW-12 Ravindra Sachdeva, PW-13 Dr. Paras Jain and PW-14 Dr. Krishnahari Sharma

8. After considering the entire evidence on record particularly about the injury upon Akhilesh, I am of the considered view that accused Sudhir @ Sudhish was found guilty under Section 307 IPC and present six appellants were convicted with aid and assistance of Section 149 IPC. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case, as these appellants were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time, hence it is a fit case to allow present SOS.

9. 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 appellants accused - Rameshwar Son Of Ram Narayan, Chintu @ Kuldeep Son Of Rajendra Prasad, Balkishan @ Madiya Son Of Ram Pratap, Krishanmurari Son Of Jagannath, Rajendra Of Of Ramswaroop & Mahendra Son Of Jagannath is suspended till disposal of appeal with the [2025:RJ-JP:22876] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1040/2025] condition that each of them 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 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 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 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.

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

11. Misc. Application stands disposed of.

12. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E-mail. CHETNA BEHRANI /18(SOSA) (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J