##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3863/2026

Radhe Impex, Proprietor Anurag Dhut S/o Suraj Karan Dhut, Age

50 Years, Resident Of 8-A-7, R.c. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara

(Rajasthan) 311001

----Petitioner

Versus

Ranoli Fabrics Private Limited, Director Anil Kumar Jain Son Of

Sant Kumar Jain, Resident Of F-109-110, Phrase-2, Riico

Industrial Area, Pur Road, Bhilwara Rajasthan 311001

----Respondent

Mr. Ankit Somani

For Petitioner(s) :

Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

14/05/2026

1. The present criminal misc. petition has been filed challenging

the order dated 28.04.2026 and 02.05.2026 passed by the

Learned Additional District Judge No.3, Bhilwara.

2. The order dated 28.04.2026 reflects that the petitioner is not

pressing the hearing of the suspension application and the

same was recorded by order dated 28.04.2026. According to

the petitioner, the petitioner has not waived the proceedings

and it was wrongly recorded by the concerned Court. By

order dated 02.05.2026, direction was given to get the

custody of the petitioner since the conviction and sentence

was operating against the petitioner as there was no

suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal. This

order has been challenged on the ground that since his

application is pending for suspension, the Court could not

have directed the petitioner to surrender in compliance of

order of sentence passed by the trial Court below.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recording

of the proceedings dated 28.04.2026 was contrary to what

(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 03:26:35 PM)

(Downloaded on 19/05/2026 at 12:13:49 AM)

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-3863/2026]

was actually happened. According to him, the counsel

appearing for the petitioner before the trial Court never said

that he was waiving to argue the suspension application and

the proceedings were wrongly recorded. It is also his

contention that the Appellate Court could not have directed

to surrender in compliance with the conviction order passed

by the trial Court which is under the appeal when the

application for suspension is pending and undecided.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions made by

learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that the

application is misconceived.

5. Having gone through the grounds on which the present

petition is filed, the petitioner, if he has any grievance with

the proceedings dated 28.04.2026 on the ground that it was

wrongly recorded contrary to what actually happened on the

said date, he was required to file an application before the

concerned Court only indicating the grounds on which such

an order said to be recorded and not before this Court.

Therefore, in this regard, intervention of this Court is

unwarranted.

6. So far as the order dated 02.05.2026 is concerned, since the

order of suspension of sentence by the Magistrate is only for

one month and after one month either he should be enlarged

on bail or he should surrender in compliance with the

suspension conditions granted by the primary Court which he

has not done. Rule 311 of Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952

is relevant in this regard. The relevant Rule reads as below:-

(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 03:26:35 PM)

(Downloaded on 19/05/2026 at 12:13:49 AM)

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-3863/2026]

“311. Particulars, to be contained in a petition

of appeal and application for revision.-

(1) to (2) ….

(3) In a case in which a sentence of imprisonment

has been awarded, the petition of appeal or the

application for revision or an application under

section 561 A Criminal Procedure Code shall also

contain a certificate signed by the Advocate for the

appellant or the applicant, as the case may be,

stating that the accused was not on bail or that, if he

was on bail, he has surrendered to it. In a case in

which bail has been granted by the Court appealed

from under sub-section (2A) of section 426 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, the fact shall be stated

in the petition of appeal.”

7. The sa