Partly allowed

Rajneet S/O Hukamsingh v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 May 2025SOSA/708/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Five appellants convicted in a 2018 dacoity-affected-area sessions case sought suspension of sentence during appeal. Weighing criminal antecedents and trial facts, the court allowed suspension for two applicants with bail conditions and dismissed it for three others with extensive criminal records.

What did the court decide?

Sentences of Ranjeet and Maharaj Singh suspended till disposal of appeal on personal bond Rs.50,000 plus two sureties Rs.25,000 each; other three applications dismissed.

Rajneet S/O Hukamsingh Vs the State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:21696]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 708/2025

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.853/2025

¶6

Ranjeet S/o Hukamsingh, R/o Majajpur Police Station Bhusawar District Bharatpur (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Sewar Bharatpur)

¶7

Babu S/o Hukamsingh, R/o Majajpur Police Station Bhusawar District Bharatpur (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Sewar Bharatpur)

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 741/2025

¶14

¶15

S.B.Criminal Appeal No. 896/2025

¶16

Maharaj Singh Son Of Shreephal, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Mainapura Police Station Bhusawar District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) (At Present Appellant Lodged in Central Jail, Bharatpur District Bharatpur)

¶17

----Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor

¶20

----Respondent

¶21

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 742/2025

¶22

¶23

S.B.Criminal Appeal No. 897/2025

¶24

Shivsingh @ Shibbo S/o Hukamsingh, R/o Majajpur Police Station Bhusawar District Bharatpur (Raj) (At Present Both Are Confined In Central Jail, Sewar Bharatpur)

¶25

(2 of 7) [SOSA-708/2025]

¶26

[2025:RJ-JP:21696]

¶27

Omi @ Omprkash @ Khatu S/o Hukamsingh, R/o Majajpur Police Station Bhusawar District Bharatpur (Raj) (At Present Both Are Confined In Central Jail, Sewar Bharatpur)

¶28

----Petitioners

¶29

Versus

¶30

The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

¶31

----Respondent

¶32

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Asgar Khan
		Mr. Nitin Jain(in SOSA No. 741/2025)
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Vijay Singh yadav, PP with
		Mr. Gaurav Gupta,AAG

¶33

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶34

Order

¶35

22/05/2025

¶36

These applications for suspension of sentence were preferred by accused Ranjeet, Babu, Maharaj, Shivsingh @ Shibbo and Omi @ Omparkash @ Khatu in pending appeals filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.03.2025 in sessions case No. 54/2018 passed by learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Bharatpur, whereby the appellants-accused were convicted and sentenced under Sections 148, 332/149, 353/149, 395/149, 307/149 and 427/149of IPC and maximum sentence awarded to each of appellant-accused is 7 years.

¶37

Learned counsel for appellants submits that appellants are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated by police. He further submits that as per report submitted by complainantRakesh Singh (Constable) cash, ATM card, Aadhar card, Voter ID Card and mobile etc. were looted at the time of incident. He

[2025:RJ-JP:21696]

[SOSA-708/2025]

(3 of 7)

further submits that the recovery was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the complainant has allegedly use of deadly weapons including firearms but no recovery was effected at the instance of any of the appellantsaccused. He also submits that as per report Ex. P-1 there were two victims and only PW-2 Rakesh was examined by prosecution but another victim Mahaveer was not examined by the prosecution. He further submits that there is no eye-witness, other than PW-2 (Rakesh). He further submits that the report was registered after a delay of one day and there were material contradictions in the cross-examination of PW-2 (Rakesh) but ignored by the Trial Court. He further submits that all injuries were simple in nature and the Trial Court has drawn a conclusion that these appellants have alleged assault against Rakesh and Mahaveer. He also submits that the Trial Court has ignored not only the opinion of PW-5 (Dr. Deepak) but also discarded the fact that no weapon was recovered, and therefore, the simple injuries cannot be treated as dangerous to life. He also submits that from the testimony of PW-2 nowhere it was established that the intention of the any of the appellant was to cause any injury may be dangerous to life and sufficient in ordinary course of nature for death of Rakesh and Mahaveer. At last, he submits that these appellants were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Maharaj Singh has submitted that three cases were registered by police against this appellant, but two cases arising out of FIR No. 242/2010 and 261/2009, were disposed of wherein this appellant was granted

[2025:RJ-JP:21696]

[SOSA-708/2025]

(4 of 7)

benefit of probation. He also referred the order dated 30.11.2018 in bail application No. 15195/2018 and submitted that appellant was on bail during trial.

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for Omi @ Omprkash @ Khatu and Shivsingh @ Shibbo has submitted copy of 7 judgments and submitted that most of the cases against Omi @ Omprkash @ Khatu and Shivsingh @ Shibbo S/o Hukamsingh were disposed of. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submitted report received from P.S. Bhusawar District Bharatpur along with intimation to complainant and criminal antecedents of accused. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 7. On basis of report Ex. P-1 dated 24.08.2018 by PW-2 Rakesh Singh about incident of assault on 23.08.2018 with him and Mahaveer FIR No. 426/2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 395 and 427 IPC was registered at P.S. Bhusawar District Bharatpur. After investigation police has filed charge-sheet against Ranjeet, Babu, Maharaj, Shivsingh @ Shibbo and Omi @ Omprkash @ Khatu but kept investigation pending in respect of Chiluk, Pilot and Mahesh under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. After framing the charge, the prosection has examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 53 documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but they have not submitted any defence evidence, however exhibited 3 documents. These appellants were convicted and sentenced and maximum sentence awarded to present appellant is 7 years.

[2025:RJ-JP:21696]

[SOSA-708/2025]

(5 of 7)

The complainant Rakesh was examined as PW-2 before the Trial Court and we have considered his statement along with cross-examination. We have also considered the statement of PW5 (Dr. Deepak Sharma) and PW-10 (Manish Khokhar). Another victim and injured Mahaveer was neither produced by prosecution nor examined as a witness to support PW-2 Rakesh Singh. We have considered the statement of Sub-Inspector (Mahaveer) PW-8 and his admission that when he reached the place where incident took place then he found only Rakesh but not Mahaveer. There is no weapon whatsoever was recovered from any of the appellant. These appellants were on bail during trial. The grounds raised by learned counsel can be considered at the time of final adjudication.

¶52

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted criminal antecedents of Shivsingh @ Shibbo S/o Hukamsingh, which indicate that 11 criminal cases were registered from 2008 to 2023 against Shivsingh @ Shibbo S/o Hukamsingh. The record indicate that 18 cases were registered against Omi @ Omprkash @ Khatu from year 2002 to 2023. The record also indicate that two criminal cases were registered against Ranjeet and out of which one is the present case. Three cases against Maharaj Singh were reported and two were disposed of and one is present case. Eight criminal cases were registered against Babu from 1999 to 2010 but it does not include present case. The record has been submitted about disposal of cases filed against Omi @ Omprkash @ Khatu and Shivsingh @ Shibbo S/o Hukamsingh and we have considered this record. The Trial court has also noticed that there were 18 criminal cases against Omi @ Omprkash @ Khatu, 11 cases against

[2025:RJ-JP:21696]

[SOSA-708/2025]

(6 of 7)

Shivsingh @ Shibbo S/o Hukamsingh, 8 cases against Babu, three cases against Maharaj and one case is against Ranjeet and same were exhibited as Ex. P-31, P-32 , P.43 and P.44 respectively.

¶57

Having considered the criminal record of appellants-accused Shivsingh @ Shibbo S/o Hukamsingh, Omi @ Omprkash @ Khatu and Babu, I am of the considered view that no case is made out to allow their applications for suspension of sentence. Though, some of the judgments submitted by learned Public Prosecutor to show that most of the cases were disposed of, but looking to the criminal antecedents and the facts of the case, it is not a fit case wherein these three accused Shivsingh @ Shibbo S/o Hukamsingh, Omi @ Omprkash @ Khatu and Babu Lal be granted bail after allowing application for suspension of sentence, but it is appropriate to allow application for suspension of sentence of Ranjeet and Maharaj Singh.

¶58

In view of discussions made hereinabove, the application for suspension of sentence No. 708/2025 qua Babu S/o Hukamsingh, suspension of sentence No. 742/2025 qua Shivsingh @ Shibbo S/o Hukamsingh and Omi @ Omprkash @ Khatu are hereby dismissed but suspension of sentence application No. 741/2025 qua Maharaj Singh Son of Shreephal and suspension of sentence application No. 708/2025 qua Rajneet S/o Hukamsingh are hereby allowed and it is ordered that sentence of appellants-applicants accused Maharaj Singh son of Shreephal and Rajneet S/o Hukamsingh is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of them would execute a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this

(7 of 7)

[2025:RJ-JP:21696]

[SOSA-708/2025]

Court on 04.09.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶63

That the appellants accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and not repeat crime of any nature during period of suspension of sentence/bail.

¶64

That the appellants will appear before the Trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

¶65

That if the appellants changes the place of residence, they will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶66

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

¶67

In case, the applicants have violated any condition then the order of suspension of sentence shall be recalled and canceled.

¶68

Misc. Applications stands disposed of.

¶69

A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail.

¶70

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶71

MONU /15-17

Rajneet S/O Hukamsingh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajneet S/O Hukamsingh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Shanti Industires Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S Shanti Industries Vs Commercial Taxes Officer

M/S Shanti Industries Vs Commercial Taxes Officer

Rajaram Son of Dharm Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar S/O Hansraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Nandlal Son of Shri Ladunath Vs State of Rajasthan