Rohit S/O Madan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1647/2024

¶3

In

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2504/2024

¶5

Rohit S/o Madan Lal, aged about 31 Years, R/o Deepangar, Railway Near B Cabin, Ringus District Sikar (At Present Accused Appellant Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1384/2024

¶12

In

¶13

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2056/2024

¶14

Kishore Kumar S/o Surja Ram, Aged About 42 Years, Resident of 126-127, Taranagar - A, Khatipura Police Station Jhotwara Jaipur (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P

¶18

----Respondent

¶19

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal)

¶20

No. 1513/2024

¶21

In

¶22

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2277/2024

¶23

Lokesh S/o Shri Nanchilal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 196, Ganesh Nagar -4, Murlipura Jaipur (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶24

----Petitioner

¶25

Versus

¶26

State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶27

----Respondent

¶28

(2 of 5) [SOSA-1647/2024]

¶29

S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1604/2024

¶30

In

¶31

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1906/2024

¶32

Ravi Meena S/o Jagdish Prasad Meena, aged about 31 Years, R/o Nawaldi Police Station Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶33

----Petitioner

¶34

Versus

¶35

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P

¶36

----Respondent

¶37

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms.	Deepak Chauhan Ashok Choudhary Madhav Mitra-Sr. Advocate with Jaya Mitra and
	Mr.	S. Khan
	Mr. Mr.	Sudhir Jain Hari Kishan Saini
	Mr. Mr.	Bhanu Prakash Sharma Pawan Kumar Meena
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	N.S. Dhakad-Addl.G.A. Cum PP
For Complainant(s)	Mr.	Mahendra Gaur

¶38

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶39

Order

¶40

07/10/2025

¶41

Counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants had faced trial for the charges under Sections 304 and 120-B IPC. The allegations against the appellants were that they asked the deceased to bring petrol in a can and thereafter, he was forced to sit in the vehicle. The can caught fire in the process of tow chaining the aforesaid vehicle. Counsel submits that initially the allegation against the appellants was that they hatched conspiracy in committing the crime against the deceased but they have been

¶42

[SOSA-1647/2024]

¶43

(3 of 5)

¶44

acquitted of the said charge and now they have been simply convicted for the offence under Section 304 IPC. Counsel submits that there is no such allegation against the appellants that they have thrown petrol upon the deceased or set him on fire rather the fire occurred all of a sudden during the process of car repairing at the workshop. Counsel submits that the appellants are in custody since the date of the impugned judgment and disposal of the appeals is bound to take time, therefore the sentence awarded to the appellants be suspended.

¶45

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the appellants and submitted that the deceased was forced to bring petrol and sit inside the car and three-four attempts were made by him to step out of the car but he was not allowed to do so which reflects the intention of the appellants of committing the above offence. Counsel submits that in the aforesaid incident, the deceased sustained more than 85% burn injuries. Counsel submits that after the incident, two dying declarations of the deceased victim were recorded which reflect that the appellants are responsible for the aforesaid offence and therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the appellants for the above charges. Hence under these circumstances, the sentence awarded to the appellants be not suspended and all the applications are liable to be rejected.

¶46

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 4. Considering the arguments put forward by counsel for the appellants and looking to the nature of allegation which does not

¶47

[SOSA-1647/2024]

¶48

(4 of 5)

¶49

reveal that any attempt was made by the appellants to pour petrol on the body of the deceased and set him on fire, but the incident has occurred while repairing the car and without making any comments on merits and demerits of the case so also looking to the fact that disposal of the appeals is likely to take time, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants.

¶50

Accordingly, all applications for suspension of sentence filed by the applicants under Section 430 B.N.S.S. are allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellants Rohit S/o Madan Lal, Kishore Kumar S/o Surja Ram, Lokesh S/o Shri Nanchilal and Ravi Meena S/o Jagdish Prasad Meena shall remain suspended till final disposal of their respective appeals, subject to the condition that the appellants shall deposit the fine amount, as imposed upon them by the Trial Court and they shall be released on bail provided each of them execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for their appearance before this Court on 10.11.2025 and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeals on the conditions indicated below:-

¶51

That they shall appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeals are decided.

¶52

That if the applicants change the place of their residence and mobile numbers, they will give in writing their changed address and mobile numbers to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶53

Similarly, if the sureties change their address(es), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

¶54

Appellants shall deposit the fine amount, as imposed by the learned trial Court.

¶55

[SOSA-1647/2024]

¶56

(5 of 5)

¶57

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-appellants in a separate file. Such file shall be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to the original case, in which the accused-appellants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Such criminal misc. case file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court.

¶58

In case the said accused-appellants do not appear before the trial court and commit any default, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶59

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶60

Ashu/82-85

Rohit S/O Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit S/O Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Kadir Son of Abdul Rehman Vs State of Rajasthan

Birdhichand S/O Shri Poonamchand @ Poonaram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Bheel S/O Shri Mahadev Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahaveer Prasad Son of Bhagirath Mal Vs State of Rajasthan

Jatin Son of Shri Pradeep, Vs State of Rajasthan

Durga Prasad Son of Pyare Lal Vs State of Rajasthan