Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Mahendra Singh Tanwar S/O Late Shri … vs State Or Rajasthan on 6 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:25003-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Application for Stay on
Conviction No. 895/2026
in
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 5/2023
URN: CRLAD / 20U / 2023
Mahendra Singh Tanwar S/o Late Shri Sohan Singh, Aged About
65 Years, R/o Jaton Ka Mohalla Chomu, District Jaipur (At
Present Appellant Lodged In Central Jail Sewar Bharatpur)
----Accused-Appellant-Applicant
Versus
State Or Rajasthan, Through Cbi Special Public Prosecutor
—-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, Advocate
assisted by Ms. Varuni Agarwal,
Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary,
Special Public Prosecutor (CBI).
For
Complainant/Victim: : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, Advocate and
Ms. Anisha Yadav, Advocate on behalf
of Mr. Kapil Gupta, Advocate.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Order
06/07/2026
1. Heard on application for staying the order of conviction and
sentence dated 16.11.2022 and 18.11.2022, respectively.
2. Counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the sentence
imposed upon the accused-applicant has already been suspended
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.04.2023.
Counsel further submits that the accused-applicant retired from
service in the year 2015 and was thereafter in receipt of a
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 10:07:38 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/07/2026 at 08:08:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:25003-DB] (2 of 4) [2nd STAY-895/2026]
provisional pension. Following the suspension of his sentence, the
accused-applicant had previously moved an application seeking a
stay on the order of conviction and sentence; however, as his
provisional pension remained undisturbed at that juncture, the
said application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
21.02.2025. Counsel further submits that State Government vide
order dated 23rd September, 2025 stopped even his provisional
pension, and thereafter, since the fresh cause of action has arisen,
the accused-applicant has filed this present application. Counsel
further submits that the accused-applicant has also been
exonerated in the departmental enquiry and after stoppage of his
provisional pension, he is facing great hardship and if the order of
conviction and sentence passed against the accused-applicant is
not stayed, he would suffer irreparable loss.
3. In support of his contentions, counsel for the accused-
applicant places reliance upon the following authorities:
i. Rama Narang versus Ramesh Narang, 1995 2 SCC 513
ii. Navjot Singh Sindhu versus State of Punjab,
MANU/SC/0648/2007
iii. Afjal Ansari versus State of U.P., (2024) 2 SCC 187
iv. Rahul Gandhi versus Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & Anr.,
(2024) 2 SCC 595
v. Hardik Bharatbhai Patel versus State of Gujarat (Supreme
Court), Criminal Appeal No. 629/2022, Order dated
12.04.2022
vi. Rotan Singh versus State of Rajasthan, D. B. Criminal
Appeal No. 76/2023, Order dated 10.07.2024
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 10:07:38 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/07/2026 at 08:08:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:25003-DB] (3 of 4) [2nd STAY-895/2026]vii. Kaluram @ Kadu versus State of Rajasthan, D. B.
Criminal Appeal No. 119/2023, Order dated
03.12.2025
viii. Jawaharlal versus State of Rajasthan, D. B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Stay Application No. 1030/2020,
Order dated 26.04.2023
ix. Ranjeet Kumar versus State of Rajasthan, D. B. Criminal
Appeal No. 288/2023, Order dated 19.12.2024
x. Dharamraj versus State of Rajasthan, S. B. Criminal
Appeal No. 964/2018, Order dated 17.04.2026
xi. Jagdish Mani Tripathi versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026
SCC OnLine All 2741
4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor assisted by learned
counsel for the complainant opposed the present application and
submitted that the accused-applicant has been convicted and
sentenced for life imprisonment, and therefore, no case is made
out to stay the order of conviction and sentence.
5. In support of their opposition, they relied on the following
authorities:
i. Shyam Narain Pandey versus State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 909
ii. State of Punjab versus Deepak Mattu, (2007) 11 Supreme
Court Cases 319
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the facts and circumstance of the present case
and also considering the facts; that the accused-applicant was on
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 10:07:38 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/07/2026 at 08:08:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:25003-DB] (4 of 4) [2nd STAY-895/2026]bail during trial; that the sentence imposed upon the accused-
applicant has already been suspended vide order dated
28.04.2023; that he has been exonerated in the departmental
enquiry and considering his old age, we deem it just and proper to
stay the order of conviction and sentence passed against the
accused-applicant till the disposal of the appeal to avoid the
hardship that has fallen upon the accused-applicant due to
stoppage of his pension.
8. Accordingly, this application stands allowed, and
consequently, the order of conviction and sentence dated
16.11.2022 and 18.11.2022 shall remain stayed pending the final
disposal of the appeal.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J
3/TUSHAR/741
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 10:07:38 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/07/2026 at 08:08:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
