Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Sosa / 1300U / 2026Gaurishankar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20798) on 1 May, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:20798]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence
Application (Appeal) No. 633/2026
Gaurishankar S/o Choturam, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Bhograna, P.S. Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
(At Present Lodged Jail Rajgarh)
----Applicant/Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
(2) S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence
Application (Appeal) No. 704/2026
Gagandeep @ Goldy S/o Omprakash, Aged About 23 Years,
Bhograna. At Present Resident Of Ward No. 19 Nohar, Police
Station Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
(At Present Lodged At District Jail Churu)
----Applicant/Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag
Mr. Jaipal Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Chandawat, Public
Prosecutor
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
01/05/2026
1. By way of the instant applications under Section 430 of
BNSS, the appellants-applicants seek suspension of sentence
awarded to them vide judgment dated 30.03.2026 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Taranagar, District Churu in Sessions
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:23:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 06:29:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20798] (2 of 4) [SOSA-633/2026 & 704/2026]
Case No. 09/2018 whereby they have been convicted and
sentenced as under:
Name of the Offence(s) for Substantive Fine and default
Applicants which sentence(s) sentence(s)
convicted
Section 147, 1 year’s RI Fine of Rs.1,000/-; in
1. Gaurishankar IPC default thereof to
further undergo one
2. Gagandeep @ month SI
Goldy Section 5 years’ RI Fine of Rs.5,000/-; in
365/149 IPC default thereof to
further undergo three
months’ SI
Section 5 years’ RI Fine of Rs.5,000/-; in
395/149 IPC default thereof to
further undergo three
months’ SI
Section 323/34 6 months’ RI Fine of Rs.1,000/-; in
IPC default thereof to
further undergo one
month SI
2. Counsel for the appellants submits that there was no
eyewitness to the incident and the appellants have been convicted
only on basis of the identification parade whereas Nathuram
Bharati (P.W.1) specifically admitted that he was called to the
police station where the arrested accused were shown to him.
3. Counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Trial
Court failed to properly appreciate the legal and factual aspects,
resulting in an erroneous finding of guilt. Being the first appellate
court, this Court may reappraise the evidence. It is further
submitted that the appellants remained on bail during trial without
misuse of liberty, and as the appeals will take time for disposal,
their sentence deserves to be suspended.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed
the applications for suspension of sentence.
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:23:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 06:29:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20798] (3 of 4) [SOSA-633/2026 & 704/2026]
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the
case and the substantial grounds as raised, this Court is of the
opinion that there are strong grounds for challenging the
judgment of conviction and as hearing of the appeal is likely to
take time, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentences awarded
to the applicants-appellants.
7. Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 430 BNSS (corresponding to Section 389, Cr.P.C.)
are allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Taranagar, District Churu vide
judgment dated 30.03.2026 in Sessions Case No.09/2018 against
the appellant-applicants named (1) Gaurishankar S/o
Choturam; and (2) Gagandeep @ Goldy S/o Om Prakash
shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeals
and they shall be released on bail provided they execute 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 appeals on the
conditions indicated below:-
1. That they will appear before the Trial Court in
the month of January of every year till the
appeals are decided.
2. That if the applicants change the place of
residence, they will give in writing their changed
address to the Trial Court as well as to the
counsel in the High Court.
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:23:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 06:29:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20798] (4 of 4) [SOSA-633/2026 & 704/2026]
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their
address(s), they will give in writing their
changed address to the Trial Court.
8. The learned Trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-
applicants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also
be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall
not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to
pendency and disposal of cases in the Trial Court. In case the said
accused-applicants do not appear before the Trial Court, the
learned Trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(REKHA BORANA),J
87-88/KashishS/-
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:23:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 06:29:33 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link
