District Tonk) v. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor

: Mr. Nitin Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh with Mr. Jaswant Singh Rathore 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— Ramjilal Son Of Nathulal, Shankar Lal Son Of Nathulal, [2025:RJ-JP:22875] (2 of 7) [SOSA-1070/2025] Deepak @ Deepu Son Of Ramnarayana, Ramnarayan Son Of Kajodmal & Rakesh Son Of Radhakishan in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.05.2025 in sessions case no. 91/2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Newai, District Tonk whereby these appellants accused were convicted and sentenced under Sections 148, 341, 323/149 and 307/149 of IPC. The maximum sentence awarded is seven years under Section 307/149 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for appellants while placing reliance upon grounds of appeal submitted that the appellants are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated. He further submitted that all accused are from one family and as a result of conviction all male members are in custody. He further referred the reasons of dispute and submitted that there was a dispute of partition of land between the parties which led to free fight. He also submitted that injured Ram Rai, PW-1, Mamta PW-5 and Soni Devi PW-6, were medically examined by PW-17 Dr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma and their injury report Ex.P/7, P/25 and P/27 indicate that all injuries are simple in nature. He further submitted that injury report of injured Gopal Ex. P/31 and submitted out of six injuries only one was found to be grievous but remaining were simple in nature. He also submitted that about injury no.1 an opinion was procured by police from PW-17 Dr. Mahesh and his opinion Ex. P/32 clearly reflect that the injury no.1 may be dangerous to life. He also submitted that even in cross- [2025:RJ-JP:22875] (3 of 7) [SOSA-1070/2025] examination PW-17 Dr. Mahesh did not remain firm about his opinion Ex. P/32, which shows that the injury no.1 upon Gopal may be dangerous to life but not necessarily dangerous to life. He also referred discrepancies and material contradictions ignored by trial court and submitted that appellant accused have strong case to succeed in the instant appeal. Learned counsel submits that the appellants accused- Deepak @ Deepu, Shankar Lal and Ram Narayan remained in custody for more than 20 months whereas Ramji Lal and Rakesh have already undergone more than 25 months against the awarded sentence. At last, he submitted that all witnesses examined by prosecution are interested witnesses and 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 learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant submits that Rakesh and Ramjilal are main accused whereas others were acted in furtherance of common object. He further referred the findings of trial court recorded in para nos. 34 and 46 of impugned judgment and submitted that the injured Gopal was summoned by the trial court for recording his statement but due to his condition the statement were not recorded. He submitted that the injury no.1 was so dangerous to life of injured Gopal that even he lost memory and senses, therefore, the appellants have no sufficient ground to procure bail in present SOS application [2025:RJ-JP:22875] (4 of 7) [SOSA-1070/2025]

4. Heard learned counsel for parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted custody certificate of all accused along with their criminal antecedents with a report received from concerned police station and same are taken on record.

5. On the basis of report Ex. P/1 lodged by PW-1 Ram Rai about assault by appellants accused and other persons with deadly weapons, FIR no. 402/2018 under Sections 143, 341, 323, 354 IPC was registered on 22.08.2018 at P.S. Newai, District Tonk. After investigation police has filed charge-sheet against five persons. The prosecution has examined 24 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents, after framing the charge. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they have examined DW-1 Ramswaroop as defene evidence and exhibited seven documents. The accused were convicted by the trial court and the maximum sentence awarded to each of them is seven years.

6. The evidence on record suggest that there were four injured PW-1 Ram Rai, PW-5 Mamta, PW-6 Soni and Gopal (not examined). The injuries upon Ram Rai, Mamta and Soni were simple in nature and same were examined by PW-17 Dr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma. The only person who suffered injuries and not examined before the trial court is injured Gopal. The injuries suffered by Gopal were examined by PW- 17 Dr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma and he prepared injury report Ex. P/31. He further opined in his reply on Ex. P/32. The injury no.1 is grievous in nature and same was from frontal [2025:RJ-JP:22875] (5 of 7) [SOSA-1070/2025] bone - temporal bone to parietal bone. The opinion of PW-17 clearly reflect that he was not firm about his opinion and used word ‘may.’

7. To further clarify the injury upon Gopal we have considered the statement of PW-23 Dr. Sanjeev Chopra and according to him there was left parietal depressed fracture with dural haematoma. There was blood clots in frontal and parietal region. PW-23 further stated that injured was discharged in good condition and exhibited discharge ticket Ex. P/35. PW- 24 Dinesh Kumar who was Sub-inspector has deposed that injured Gopal was not in a condition to record his statement and the opinion Ex. P/36 was obtained from doctor. In para no. 46 learned trial court has observed that on 03.02.2024, a 70 year old Gopal was present before the court but he was not in a position to understand and reply to the questions.

8. A perusal of evidence of prosecution suggested that Ramjilal and Rakesh were assigned the injuries suffered by Gopal. At this stage, it is not possible to express any opinion on merits of the case particularly the grounds raised by learned counsel for appellants.

9. The record suggest that one more case was registered under Sections 143, 323 and 341 IPC against Ram Narayan but there were no criminal case against other appellants accused. The custody certificate indicate that appellants accused Ramjilal has undergone period of custody of more than two years and seventeen days and Rakesh more than two years and thirteen days whereas Shankar Lal and [2025:RJ-JP:22875] (6 of 7) [SOSA-1070/2025] Deepak @ Deepu have undergone one year, eight months and fifteen days and Ram Narayan more than one year and nine months. The maximum sentence awarded to each of appellant is seven years.

10. Very recently on 08.05.2025 while considering Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 4/2021 in Re-policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering judgment in case of Bhagwan Ram Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujarat (1999) 4 SCC 421, NCB Vs. Lakwinder Singh 2025 SCC Online SC 366 and Atul @ Ashutosh Vs. State of U.P. 2024 (3) SCC 663 has held that where there is a fixed term sentence, normally power of suspension of sentence, should be exercised liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances brought on record. The High Court is bound by the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard.

11. Having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case as disposal of appeal will take its own time and the appellants have already undergone substantial part of sentence particularly Rakesh and Ramjilal, therefore, it is a fit case wherein indulgence of bail can be granted.

12. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:22875] (7 of 7) [SOSA-1070/2025] accused - Ramjilal Son Of Nathulal, Shankar Lal Son Of Nathulal, Deepak @ Deepu Son Of Ramnarayana, Ramnarayan Son Of Kajodmal & Rakesh Son Of Radhakishan is suspended till disposal of appeal with the 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 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 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.

13. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 14 . A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E-mail. CHETNA BEHRANI /21(SOSA) (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J