Allowed

Ikram Khan Son of Mumtaz Mohammad Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Sept 2026RSTAY/5497/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court stayed the criminal conviction and sentencing order pending appeal. The appellant, a dismissed government employee, argued that immediate operation of the conviction would cause grave consequences regarding his pension and livelihood. The Court deemed it just and proper to stay the trial court's judgment.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the judgment and order of conviction dated 19.3.2026 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ajmer, during the pendency of the appeal.

Ikram Khan Son of Mumtaz Mohammad Khan Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Stay on conviction No. 5497/2026

¶3

CNR: RJHC020664342026 | URN: RSTAY / 12146U / 2026

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.724/2016

¶6

Ikram Khan Son Of Mumtaz Mohammad Khan, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Gagwana, Police Station Gegal, District Ajmer.

¶7

----Accused appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. T.C. Sharma, Advocate and Mr.
	Kshitiz Singh, Advocate for Mr. S.S.
	Hora,Advocate
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta,PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶13

Order

¶14

03/09/2026

¶15

The matter comes up on an application seeking stay of operation of the judgment and order dated 19.3.2026 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.5, Ajmer in Sessions Case No.41/2016 (14/2012) (for short ‘the appellate court’), whereby the applicant has been convicted for the offence(s) under Sections 147, 148, 452, 341, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149, 427, 304 Part I/19 IPC and sentenced as under:-

¶16

Offence	Sentence
147 IPC	1 years S.I. with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
	payment of fine,to further undergo 15 days' S.I.
148 IPC	2years S.I. with a fine of Rs.500/-,in default of

¶17

[RSTAY-5497/2026]

¶18

	(2 of 5) [RSTAY-5497/2026 payment of fine,to further undergo 15 days' S.I.
452 IPC	5 years S.I. with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' S.I.
341 IPC	1 month's S.I. with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 7 days' S.I.
323/149 IPC	To undergo 1 year's SI with a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' SI
324/149 IPC	To undergo 3 years' SI with a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' SI
325/149 IPC	To undergo 5 years' SI with a fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' SI
326/149 IPC	To undergo 7 years' SI with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months' SI
427 IPC	To undergo 6 months' SI with a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' SI
304 Part I/149 IPC	To undergo 10 years' SI with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1year's SI

¶19

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a Government servant and at the relevant point of time, was working on the post of Physical Teacher in Raomaavi Untda, Ajmer Rural, Ajmer. Without holding any enquiry and without following due procedure, he has been dismissed from service by the District Education Officer H.Q. Secondary Education, Ajmer vide order dated 17.4.2026 on account of his conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that if the effect and operation of the judgment dated 19.3.2026 passed by the trial court is not stayed, then it will cause grave consequences to the appellant as his pension, gratuity and leave

¶21

[RSTAY-5497/2026]

¶22

(3 of 5)

¶23

encashment has been withheld. He has no other source of income except pension. He further submits that material prosecution witnesses namely PW-12 Gulam Rasool, PW-14 Iliyas, PW-16 Gul Hasan Khan, PW-21 Gul Kamar Khan, PW-32 Mehmood and PW-34 Munif @ Kalli have turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case.

¶24

Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

¶25

(i) Rahul Gandhi Versus Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & ORs. reported in (2024) 2 SCC 595

¶26

(ii) Mahendra Singh Tanwar Versus State of Rajasthan passed in D.B. Crl. Misc. Second Application for Stay on Conviction No. 895/2026

¶27

(iii) Ranjeet Kumar Versus State of Rajasthan passed in D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 288/2023

¶28

(iv) Balbir Singh Versus State of Rajasthan passed in (D.B. Crl. Misc. Stay Petition No. 5252/2019)

¶29

(v) Ramdatt Versus State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Crl. Misc. Stay Appl. No. 4265/2022

¶30

(vi) Dharamraj Versus State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Crl. Misc. Stay Petition No. 3208/2026

¶31

(vii) Gopendra Kumar Versus State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Crl. Misc. Stay Appl. No. 1585/2021

¶32

(viii) Kanwar Lal Meena Versus State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Crl. Misc. (Stay of Conviction) Appl. No. 8153/2023

¶33

(ix) Subhash Kholiya Versus State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Crl. Misc. Stay Appl. No. 1602/2017

¶34

[RSTAY-5497/2026]

¶35

(4 of 5)

¶36

(x) Satpal Versus State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Crl.

¶37

Misc. Stay Application No. 3018/2019

¶38

(xi) Mohit Kumar Versus State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Crl. Misc. Stay Appl. No. 2267/2024

¶39

(xii) Anand Kumar Versus State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Crl. Revision Petition No. 191/2022

¶40

(xiii) Smt. Pushpa Devi Versus State passed in S.B. Crl. Stay No. 417/2021

¶41

(xiv) Mahendra Kumar Versus State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Cr. Misc. Stay Application No. 3801/2021

¶42

Learned PP appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the application and argued that as per CCA Rules if a government employee is convicted, the State can dismiss him from service only on account of the conviction order. If the conviction is stayed, government will be forced to keep a convict on duty which will have serious repercussions and public faith would be lost if a convict is continued in job.

¶43

I have considered the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties.

¶44

Taking note of the fact that the appellant is a Government servant and at the relevant point of time was working on the post of Physical Teacher in Raomaavi Untda, Ajmer Rural, Ajmer and consequences of not staying his conviction will affect his career as he has been dismissed from service vide order dated 17.4.2026, therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to stay the judgment of conviction dated 19.3.2026 passed by the trial court.

¶45

(5 of 5)

¶46

[RSTAY-5497/2026]

¶47

Consequently, judgment and order dated 19.3.2026 passed by the trial court qua conviction of the appellant shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

¶48

Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

¶49

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶50

DK/46

Ikram Khan Son of Mumtaz Mohammad Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ikram Khan Son of Mumtaz Mohammad Khan 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases