IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO.

1 of 2025 In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2983 of 2025 ==========================================================

RAKESHKUMAR SING @ RAJUSINGH @ SUKHADI SHYAMLALSINGH KUSHVA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR EKANT G AHUJA(5323) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR JAY MEHTA APP for the RESPONDENT No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 09/03/2026

IA ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent State. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.

2. We have heard Mr. Ekant Ahuja, learned advocate and Mr. Jay Mehta, learned APP for the respective parties.

3. By way of this application under Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, applicant, seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him by the Sessions Court concerned for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 364(a), 368, 368, 342, 387 r/w 120 B, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section

135 (1) of GP Act.

4. The present appeal and the application for suspension of sentence arise from the judgment dated 29.09.2025 and order of sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 423 of 2013, whereby, the applicant herein was convicted and sentenced as under:

5. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present application are that on 18.10.2013, the deceased Kamlesh was kidnapped for ransom and thereafter, he was brutally killed and his dead body was cutting into pieces and same were stuffed in the jute bags and thrown into sewage. In these background, on the basis of complaint and chargesheet for the offences as referred above, the trial Court, held guilty the accused applicant for the offence of murder.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Ekant Ahuja, appearing on behalf of the applicant while praying for suspension of sentence contended that the principal accused, who had actively participated in the offence, was remained absconding and the trial qua the applicant was proceeded. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence and the various links in the chain of circumstances, have not been proved and established so far applicant accused is concerned. There was no discovery and recovery at the instance of applicant. The so called circumstance of CC TV footage of shops, from where the weapon cutter was purchased, having not been proved with the submission of 65B certificate and same cannot be admitted into evidence. The motive was not established. In such circumstances, the trial Court on the basis of suspicion and conjuncture, without any legal proof, convicted the applicant.

In such circumstances, it is submitted that since from the date of arrest he is in jail and as on date, he has undergone 10 years and 3 months, and appeal is filed in the year 2025 and as such, there is no scope of early hearing of the appeal and therefore, it is submitted that, the prayer may be allowed.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Jay Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction as passed by the trial Court and contended that, the offence proved is serious one and the manner in which, the deceased was brutally killed by the accused in connivance with co-accused, the mere long incarceration would be a ground to grant him bail.

8. Issue arises as to whether the applicant has made out a case for suspension of sentence?

9. We have carefully examined the case records and considered the submissions made at the bar. The entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence and most of the circumstance, as relied by the prosecution, would indicate the involvement of absconding accused. We are of the prima-facie view that the findings on the aspect of circumstantial evidence, having not been properly dealt with by the trial Cou