Allowed

Mukesh S/O Noranglal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 May 2026SOSA/1516/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Six accused sentenced to life imprisonment for murder applied for suspension of sentence pending appeal. Noting they were on bail during trial and unnamed in the FIR and initial police statements, with appeal disposal likely delayed, the bench suspended their sentences and admitted them to bail.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended during appeal pendency; accused-applicants admitted to bail subject to trial court satisfaction, to appear before court on 25.05.2026.

Mukesh S/O Noranglal Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:18585-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application No.

¶4

1516/2025

¶5

¶6

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.137/2025

¶7

Mukesh S/o Noranglal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Roru Chhoti Police Station Laxmangarh District Sikar (At Present Confined At District Jail Sikar)

¶8

Surjeet Singh S/o Chhatusingh, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Roru Badi Police Station Laxmangarh District Sikar (At Present Confined At District Jail Sikar)

¶9

Dilip Singh @ Dilawar S/o Bhawani Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Roru Badi Police Station Laxmangarh District Sikar (At Present Confined At District Jail Sikar)

¶10

Raju @ Rajendra Singh S/o Umrav Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Bhuma Chhota Police Station Laxmangarh District Sikar (At Present Confined At District Jail Sikar)

¶11

Jitendra Singh @ Babu S/o Vijaypal Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Roru Chhoti Police Station Laxmangarh District Sikar (At Present Confined At District Jail Sikar)

¶12

Mohmmed Javid @ Anwar S/o Mohmmed Sharif, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 27, Kasba Fatehpur District Sikar (At Present Confined At District Jail Sikar)

¶13

----Accused Applicants

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

¶16

----Respondent

¶17

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Rajesh Goswami Mr. Shiv Kumar Jangir Mr. Garvit Saraswat Mr. Jay Bhardwaj Mr. Adeet Srivastava
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Dy.GA Mr.Pankaj Gupta for complainant

¶18

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

¶19

[2026:RJ-JP:18585-DB]

[SOSA-1516/2025]

(2 of 3)

Order

01/05/2026

This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the present accused-applicants along with the appeal.

¶25

Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-applicants submit that the accused-applicants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC.

¶26

Counsel for the accused-applicants submits that the accusedapplicants have been falsely implicated in this matter and they were on bail during trial. Counsel further submits that accused applicants were neither named in the FIR nor in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C by the police during investigation. However, they were named in the supplementary statements of witnesses which were recorded after 70 days by the investigating agency. It is a case of improvements in the statements of witnesses before the learned trial court. Counsel further submits that hearing/disposal of appeal is likely to take long time. Therefore, he prays that sentence awarded to the accused-applicants may be suspended and the accused-applicants be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

¶27

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence.

¶28

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶29

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and also considering the fact that all the accused applicants

¶30

[2026:RJ-JP:18585-DB]

¶31

[SOSA-1516/2025]

¶32

(3 of 3)

¶33

were on bail during trial and also considering the fact that they were neither named in the FIR nor in the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C by the police at the first instance and also considering the fact that FIR has been lodged by the brother of the deceased and hearing/disposal of appeal is likely to take long time, we deem it just and proper to suspend the sentence of the present accused-applicants during the pendency of the appeal. 7. In that view of the matter, this criminal miscellaneous suspension of sentence application is allowed and it is ordered that execution of sentence awarded to the accused-applicants shall remain suspended during the pendency of the criminal appeal and accused-applicants be admitted to bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that the accused-applicants shall appear before this Court on 25.05.2026 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so.

¶34

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court through e-mail/fax for necessary compliance.

¶35

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶36

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶37

Anu /14

Mukesh S/O Noranglal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh S/O Noranglal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rameshwar S/O Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sadiq Saraf @ Sadiq Hussain @ Sadiq Saraf S/O Shri Abdul Samad, Vs National Investigation Agencies

Mohammad Sohail S/O Shri Mohammad Salim Vs State of Rajasthan

Gyanendra Shukla S/O Shri Kamal Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Divya Pareek W/O Shri Gaurav Pareek, D/O Shri Neeraj Pareek, Vs Gaurav Pareek Son of Shri Kamal Kishor Pareek

Dholaram Yadav S/O Shri Moolchand Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan