##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:24656-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)

No. 1651/2025

Bhanwar Singh S/o Dalpat Singh Rajput, Aged About 68 Years,

R/o Vadiya Kudi, Kurabad P.S., Distt. Udaipur (Lodged In Central

Jail, Udaipur).

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagatveer Singh Deora

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Public Prosecutor

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

20/05/2026

1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 01.02.2019 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur in Sessions

Case No.59/2018 (1/2018):

Offence Sentence Fine

323 IPC One Year R.I. Rs.1,000/- and in default of

payment of fine, further

undergo three months’

additional R.I.

302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- and in default of

payment of fine, further

undergo six months’

additional R.I.

2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for

suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension

(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 03:21:30 PM)

(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:25:23 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:24656-DB] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1651/2025]

of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and for release on

bail.

3. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-

applicant is that as the applicant has already undergone sentence

of 12 years, 5 months and 23 days as on 19.05.2026 and there is

no chance of hearing of the appeal in near future, thus, in view of

the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 15.09.2022 in

Sonadhar v. The State of Chhattisgarh : SLP (Crl.) No.529/2021,

the sentence of the applicant be suspended and he be enlarged on

bail.

4. Further submissions have been made that there are no

reasons and / or extenuating circumstances for denial of bail.

Submissions have also been made with reference to order dated

05.10.2021 in Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh : SLP

(Crl.) No.4633/2021, wherein also observations have been made

regarding grant of bail in the appeal at the High Court stage

except certain exceptions and that none of the exceptions are

applicable in the present case.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for

suspension of sentence with the submission that as the appellant-

applicant has committed heinous offence, suspension of sentence

of such offender would send adverse message in the society.

However, he has not denied that the appellant-applicant has

already undergone sentence of 12 years, 5 months and 23 days as

on 19.05.2026 during trial and after sentence.

6. We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on

record.

(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 03:21:30 PM)

(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:25:23 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:24656-DB] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1651/2025]

7. Looking to the fact that criminal appeal pertaining to year

2019 and is also pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of

hearing of the present appeal in near future.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh

(supra) observed an exception, which could be a broad guideline,

which reads as follows :-

"1. Heinous nature of crime :

(a) Prohibited categories : To ensure public peace and

the well-being of the society, life convicts who are

hardened criminals, repeat offenders, kidnappers, in

crimes related to massacre (three or more than three

murders), habitual criminals, and fall in prohibited

categories as per the U.P. Jail Standing Policy- no bail

should be granted. "

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonadhar (supra),

while dealing with SMW (Crl.) No.4/2021 pertaining to ‘life

convicts in jail whose appeals are pending before the High Court’

inter-alia, issued the following directions :-

“We consider appropriate to issue directions in terms of

the aforesaid suggestions to the Patna High Court and

on a pari materia basis to even the other High Courts.

However, in order