HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2778/2025

1. Sunil Nath S/o Kapurnath, Aged About 37 Years, R/o

Village Bijaliya, P.s. Samdari, Dist. Balotra

2. Rajunath S/o Bhanwarnath, Aged About 42 Years, R/o

Village Bijaliya, P.s. Samdari, Dist. Balotra

3. Babunath S/o Sh. Pragnath, Aged About 58 Years, R/o

Village Bijaliya, P.s. Samdari, Dist. Balotra

4. Ishnath @ Ishwarnath S/o Sh. Pragnath, Aged About 43

Years, R/o Village Bijaliya, P.s. Samdari, Dist. Balotra

5. Vennath S/o Sh. Modnath, Aged About 48 Years, R/o

Village Bijaliya, P.s. Samdari, Dist. Balotra

6. Hemnath S/o Sh. Kalunath, Aged About 35 Years, R/o

Village Bijaliya, P.s. Samdari, Dist. Balotra

7. Nemnath S/o Babunath, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village

Bijaliya, P.s. Samdari, Dist. Balotra

----Appellants

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhawani Singh

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP

Mr. OP Choudhary, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

10/12/2025

[S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 2778/2025 ]

Admit.

Issue notice.

Call for the record.

S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 2351/2025:-

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been moved on behalf of the applicants-appellants against the judgment and order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, in Sessions Case No. 11/2017 whereby they were convicted and sentenced as follows :-

Convicted u/s Imprisonment Fine In default of Fine

148 IPC 2 years’ R.I. Rs.2,000/- 3 months’ R.I. 452 IPC 3 years’ R.I. Rs.3,000/- 4 months’ R.I. 323/149 IPC 6 months’ S.I. Rs.1,000/- 1 month’s R.I. 324/149 IPC 2 years’ R.I. Rs.2,000/- 3 months’ R.I.

The aforementioned punishments were ordered to run concurrently.

2. It is contended on behalf of the applicants-appellants that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the correct, legal and factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be appreciated again by this court being the first appellate Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants-applicants submits that the appellants were on bail during trial. The sentences have been suspended by the learned trial court for one month. The applicants-appellants have though been convicted, however, the learned trial court has not appreciated the fact that the injury was not caused on any vital part of the body of the victim so also the fact that evidence has not properly appreciated to hold the applicants-appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences. On the basis of these submissions, learned counsel submits that the appellants-applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail by suspending the sentences awarded to them.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused-applicants for suspension of sentence.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Considering the facts stated above and particularly the fact that the applicants-appellants were on bail during trial so also the fact that sentences have already been suspended by the learned trial court for one month; the hearing of the appeal will take sufficiently long time and without making any observation on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the applicants-

appellants.

7. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 430 BNSS (old section 389 Cr.P.C.) is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences awarded by the learned learned trial Court against the appellants-applicants - Sunil Nath S/o Kapurnath, Rajunath S/o Bhanwarnath, Babunath S/o Sh. Pragnath, Ishnath @ Ishwarnath S/o Sh. Pragnath, Vennath S/o Sh. Modnath, Hemnath S/o Sh. Kalunath and Nemnath S/o Babunath, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail provided they execute a personal bond in the