HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 775/2025

1. Pankaj Kumar S/o Shri Bhawati Shankar, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Nawal Shayam, P.s. Bichiwada, Dist.

Dungarpur (Raj.)

2. Geeta D/o Umiya Shankar, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Nawal Shayam, P.s. Bichiwada, Dist. Dungarpur (Raj.)

3. Mamta D/o Ratan Lal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Nawal Shayam, P.s. Bichiwada, Dist. Dungarpur (Raj.)

4. Anjana D/o Bhawani Shankar, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Nawal Shayam, P.s. Bichiwada, Dist. Dungarpur (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohammad Akbar For Respondent(s) : Mr. SR Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

20/01/2026

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS, 2023 has been moved on behalf of the petitioner-applicant in the matter of judgment dated 06.10.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur in Criminal Case No.367/2003, whereby he was convicted and sentenced as under :-

The appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgment stood dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Appeal No.51/2019 vide judgment dated 17.06.2025.

2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the learned trial Judge 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. He was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted to him; hearing of the revision is likely to take long time, therefore, the application for suspension of sentence may be granted.

3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused-applicant for releasing the petitioner on application for suspension of sentence.

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

5. Since the petitioner is not behind bar, the defect pointed out by the Registry is over ruled in light of Vishnu Teli Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., RLW2011(1), Raj.659. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon examining the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail, that the appellant is presently not in custody, and that the accused-petitioner remained on bail during the course of trial, and further considering that the hearing of the revision petition is likely to take considerable time, this Court, while refraining from making any observations on the merits of the case or the alleged defects in the prosecution case so as not to prejudice the hearing of the revision, is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for suspension of the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner is not in custody and he need not surrender back. It is ordered that the sentence passed by learned trial court, the details of which are provided in the first para of this order, against the appellant- applicant named above shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid revision and he shall be released on bail provided he 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 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the revision on the conditions indicated below:-

(1) That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the revision is decided.

(2) That if the applicant 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.

(3) Similarly, if the sureties change their addresses, they will give in writing their changed addre