State Of Rajasthan, Through The Pp v. For

: Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar with Mr. Hemang Singh Sinsinwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka with Mr. Ashir Gauri Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 31/07/2025 Order

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant - Hariram Son Of Sitaram in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated

30.11.2024 in Sessions Case No. 41/2019 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Sikar whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 307, 452/34, 325/34, 323/34 and 341 IPC and sentenced accordingly.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that appellant is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submitted [2025:RJ-JP:29363] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1491/2025] that this Hon’ble Court has allowed SOS application of accused Rajendra on 12.05.2025 in criminal appeal no. 3275/2024 and Vijay Pal on 30.05.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 3275/2024. He further submitted that the report was registered by PW-3 against 9 persons but police has found involvement of four persons after investigation and out of which one has already expired. He further submitted that injured Neeraj was examined by PW-2 and he found that there is one head injury and another complaint of pain. He further submitted that at belated stage, second injury was caused by blunt object but there is no opinion about nature of injury. He also submitted that after inquiry report IO has asked about opinion of these injuries and PW-2 has opined in writing (Ex. P/5) that injuries were grievous in nature but later IO has further asked final opinion and on Ex. P/6 PW-2 has opined that if the injury was not treated then, it is dangerous. He further referred the statement of PW-9 injured and both IO (PW-14 and PW-17) and submitted that the trial court has ignored the material contradictions in the statement of witnesses. He further referred the process of investigation and submitted that Chaak FIR was sent after a delay but without explaining the reasons. He further submitted that independent witnesses on record have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. At last, he submitted that appellant accused was on bail during trial and the case of present appellant is identical with two other accused who were granted bail by this Hon’ble Court.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Learned public prosecutor has submitted custody certificate and same is taken on [2025:RJ-JP:29363] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1491/2025] record. Learned counsel for complainant has referred statement of injured and doctor and submitted that two injuries were caused on vital part of body and these were attributed to present appellant. He also submitted that present appellant is main accused and he is not entitled to be released on bail.

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

5. On the basis of report Ex. P/1 by PW-3 Jagdish Prasad, FIR no. 174/2014 was registered at P.S. Laxmangarh, District Sikar. After investigation police has filed charge-sheet against four persons Vijay Pal, Rakesh, Hari Ram and Rajendra but during trial Rakesh has expired so proceedings were dropped against him. After framing the charge, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. The appellant accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they have not submitted any defence evidence but exhibited five documents. The trial court has convicted Hariram under Sections 307,341, 452/34 and 323/34 and 325/34 IPC whereas Vijaypal and Rajendra were convicted under Sections 307/34, 341, 452/34, 323/34 and 325/34 IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to present appellant is 10 years under Section 307 IPC. This appellant accused was released on bail during trial and besides present case one more FIR no. 172/2014 was registered against the appellant at P.S. Laxmangarh, District Sikar.

6. The appellant accused was on bail during trial and there is no other criminal antecedent against the present appellant. This Court has already allowed SOS application of two accused Rajendra and Vijay Pal who were convicted with aid of Section 34 [2025:RJ-JP:29363] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1491/2025] IPC. We have considered statement of PW-2 and PW-9 about the nature of injury and their impact. Also considered statement of PW-9 regarding role and involvement of present appellant. The Court has also considered statement of both IO and also other relevant record of prosecution. The appellant accused was on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time.

6. 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.

7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, totality of facts and circumstances of the case, 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- Hariram Son Of Sitaram 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 22.08.2025 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. [2025:RJ-JP:29363] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1491/2025]

3. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his 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.

5. In case, the applicant has violated any condition, then the order of SOS shall be recalled and cancelled. Misc. Application stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E-

9. mail. CHETNA BEHRANI /12(sosa) (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J