Partly allowed

Saddam Ansari @ Naeem S/O Abdul Haq v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Oct 2025SOSA/1963/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed suspension of sentence for two appellants convicted of common offenses but rejected the application of a third appellant who caused a firearm injury dangerous to life to the victim, distinguishing based on severity.

What did the court decide?

Applications for suspension of sentence allowed for Saddam Ansari @ Naeem and Rocky @ Rahul; rejected for Ravindra Singh. Released on bail on deposit of fine and executing personal bonds with sureties

Saddam Ansari @ Naeem S/O Abdul Haq Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1963/2024

¶3

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2909/2024

¶5

Saddam Ansari @ Naeem S/o Abdul Haq, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Hakim Ji Ki Badi, Talab Pada, Police Station Kotwali District Baran (Raj) (At Present Confined At Jail, Kota District Kota )

¶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. 1416/2024

¶12

¶13

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2121/2024

¶14

Rocky @ Rahul S/o Om Prakash, R/o Anantpur Road Police Station Division -1, District Pathankot Punjab Hal R/o Tenant At Mehraj House, Gayatri Vihar Second, Police Station Borkhera District Kota (Raj) (At Present Confined In Jail Kota)

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor

¶18

----Respondent

¶19

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1487/2024

¶20

¶21

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2224/2024

¶22

Ravindra Singh Son of Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of House No. 76, Baradiwal Hakima Gate, Annagarh, District Amritsar Punjab At Present Tenant At The House Of Meraj Gayatri Vihar Second Police Station Borkheda Kota Rajasthan (At Present Confined In Jail At Kota)

----Petitioner

Versus

[SOSA-1963/2024]

(2 of 4)

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P

¶28

----Respondent

¶29

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Gurvindra Singh
		Mr. Dushyant Singh Naruka Mr. Avtar Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Amit Gupta-Dy.G.A. cum PP Mr. Ashutosh Mishra
		Mr. Ashish Sharma

¶30

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order

¶31

08/10/2025

¶32

Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submit that no recovery of any ornaments or money has been made at the instance of the appellants. Counsel submits that no specific overt act has been assigned to them and still they have been convicted for the offences charged. Counsel submit that accused appellants were on bail during the course of the trial and disposal of the appeal is bound to take time, therefore the sentence awarded to the appellants be suspended.

¶33

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant oppose the arguments raised by counsel for the appellants and submit that the injured -Ravi was not only brutally beaten but a firearm injury was also inflicted on his head due to which he has lost complete vision in his eyes. Counsel submits that the allegations levelled against the appellants are corroborated by the medical evidence and two of the appellants i.e. Rocky @ Rahul and Ravindra Singh have been duly identified by the witness PW-10 -Shashank, hence the sentence awarded to the appellants may not be suspended and their application is liable to be rejected.

¶34

(3 of 4) [SOSA-1963/2024]

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.

¶36

Perusal of the statement of PW10- Shashank indicates that the appellant-Ravindra Singh has caused firearm injury on the head of the injured PW-3- Ravi and as per the medical report this injury was found to be dangerous to life. This fact has also come on record that on account of sustaining this injury, the injured PW3 Ravi, has lost complete vision in his eyes but looking to the fact that specific overt act has been assigned to the Ravindra Singh and common general allegations have been levelled to the other accused i.e. Rocky @ Rahul and and Saddam Ansari @ Naeem. 5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to accept the application submitted by the accused appellant- Ravindra Singh Son of Shri Sarabjeet Singh , hence the same is hereby rejected and the applications submitted by the accused appellants-Saddam Ansari @ Naeem and Rocky @ Rahul stand allowed.

¶37

Accordingly, 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 Saddam Ansari @ Naeem S/o Abdul Haq and Rocky @ Rahul S/o Om Prakash shall remain suspended till final disposal of the 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

¶38

(4 of 4)

¶39

[SOSA-1963/2024]

¶40

this Court on 10.11.2025 and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

The learned trial Court shall maintain 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.

¶46

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.

¶47

In case, the appeal is not heard within a period of one year from today, the appellant-Ravindra Singh would be at liberty to submit fresh application for suspension of sentence.

¶48

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶49

Ashu/83-85

Saddam Ansari @ Naeem S/O Abdul Haq v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saddam Ansari @ Naeem S/O Abdul Haq v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Govind Singh Vs State

Mangi Lal Vs State and Ors.

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs G.P. Saxena Son of Late Shri T.S. Saxena