Dismissed¶¶36

Vijay@Vijay Singh S/O Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Suspension of Sentence – Second Application Rejected

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2025SOSA/891/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

second application suspension of sentence dismissed; repeat SOSA; no material change in circumstances; life imprisonment; Section 5(M)/6 POCSO Act; D. B. Criminal Appeal No.325/2019; D.B. Criminal Misc 2nd SOSA 891/2025; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; order dated 06/10/2025; first SOSA dismissed 20.04.2023; victim statement; F.S.L. Report; Rule 311 (3) Rajasthan High Court Rules certificate; judicial custody; eight years served; Abdul Kalam Khan advocate; Sudesh Kumar Saini Additional Government Advocate; Inderjeet Singh J; Bhuwan Goyal J.

What did the court decide?

None; the second application for suspension of sentence was dismissed and the substantive sentence was not suspended, the applicant remaining in judicial custody during the pendency of the appeal. ¶¶36

Vijay@Vijay Singh S/O Bhanwar Lal Vs State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:40479-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc 2^nd Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 891/2025

¶4

¶5

D. B. Criminal Appeal No.325/2019

¶6

Vijay@vijay Singh S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Behind Police Chouki Khanpur, Distt. Jhalawar Raj. (At Present Confined At Distt. Jail Jhalwar)

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan,Advocate.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, Additional
	Government Advocate.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶13

Order

¶14

06/10/2025

¶15

The matter is heard on the second application seeking suspension of sentence.

¶16

Counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the applicantaccused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 5(M)/6 of POCSO Act.

¶17

Counsel for the accused-applicant has annexed the certificate under Rule 311 (3) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules to the effect that accused-applicant is in judicial custody. Counsel for the applicant-accused submits that the applicant-accused has been

¶18

[2025:RJ-JP:40479-DB]

¶19

[SOSA-891/2025]

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

falsely implicated in this matter and he has already served the sentence for a period of almost eight years. It is accordingly prayed that the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicantaccused be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

¶22

This Court had previously adjudicated upon and dismissed the first application for suspension of sentence preferred by the applicant-accused by a reasoned order dated 20.04.2023. The said

¶23

order reads, inter alia, as follows:

¶24

“1. Accused-applicant has preferred this application for suspension of sentence. 2. Heard on application for suspension of sentence.

¶25

3. It is contended by counsel for the applicant that injuries sustained by the victim was on account of overturning of the police vehicle. It is further contended that father of the victim had earlier also filed complaint with regard to outraging the modesty of his other daughter.

¶26

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the present application for suspension of sentence. It is informed by learned Additional Government Advocate that victim has been intimated about filing of the criminal appeal as well as application for suspension of sentence. Report with regard to intimation has also been submitted before this Court and the same is taken on record.

¶27

5. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the victim.

¶28

6. We have perused the record.

¶29

7. On perusal of the statement of the victim as well as on perusal of the F.S.L. Report, we are not inclined to entertain the present application for suspension of sentence.

¶30

8. The present application for suspension of sentence is accordingly, dismissed.”

¶31

Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently

¶32

opposed the application seeking suspension of sentence.

¶33

[2025:RJ-JP:40479-DB]

¶34

[SOSA-891/2025]

¶35

Upon careful consideration, this Court is of the view that the first application seeking suspension of sentence having been dismissed on merits, and in the absence of any material change in circumstances, except for the additional duration of incarceration undergone by the applicant-accused, no justifiable ground has been made out warranting a different conclusion at this stage.

¶36

Consequently, in view of the earlier order passed by this Court on 20.04.2023, the present (second) application for suspension of sentence stands dismissed.

¶37

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶38

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶39

Tushar/3

Vijay@Vijay Singh S/O Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay@Vijay Singh S/O Bhanwar 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

The Tax Bar Association Vs Union of India

Mithlesh Meena W/O Shri Kaushal Kishor Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Abhishek Singh S/O. Udainarayansingh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Omveer Singh S/O Kishan Singh Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Haricharan Meena S/O Shri Phoolchand, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Deepak S/O Shri Pratap Singh Vs State of Rajasthan