Dismissed¶30

Manraj S/O Shri Heeralal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Mar 2026SOSA/301/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence; second application dismissed; no change in circumstances; change of counsel; period of custody; first SOSA dismissed on merits 18.09.2023; D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 176/2023; Sawai Madhopur District Jail; earlier order referred to statements of PW/2 & PW/5 and mechanical inspection report of tractor and motorcycle; rash and negligent driving contention (recorded in reproduced earlier order); opposition by Learned Public Prosecutor; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench; order dated 19/03/2026.

What did the court decide?

After dismissal of the first suspension of sentence application, there is no change in the circumstances except the change of counsel and the period of custody, and therefore the Court is not inclined to grant the indulgence prayed for by the appellant. ¶29

Manraj S/O Shri Heeralal Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:11843-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc. 2^nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 301/2025

¶4

¶5

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.176/2023

¶6

Manraj S/o Shri Heeralal Father/o Heera Lal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Gaddi Bharja, Ps Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan Presently At District Jail, Sawai Madhopur

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ajatshatru Mina
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. GA
For Complainant(s)	: Mr. Amir Aziz

¶12

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

¶13

Order

¶14

19/03/2026

¶15

This is second suspension of sentence application filed by the appellant.

¶16

The first suspension of sentence application was dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 18.09.2023 which reads as under:-

¶17

“1. Accused-applicant has preferred this application for suspension of sentence. 2. Heard on application for suspension of sentence. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was on bail during trial. At most, it is the case of rash and negligent driving. It is also contended that the eye witnesses, who have shown

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[2026:RJ-JP:11843-DB]

¶20

[SOSA-301/2025]

¶21

their presence, at the place of occurrence, are not reliable witnesses.

¶22

Learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the suspension of sentence application. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the applicant was paramour of wife of the deceased; he had threatened the deceased just prior to the incident and he accidented the motorcycle, as a result of which, the deceased expired. Thereafter, the trolley of tractor overturned and another lady who was standing on the road, has also expired.

¶23

We have considered the contentions and perused the material on record.

¶24

Considering the statements of PW/2 & PW/5 as well as the mechanical inspection report of the tractor and motorcycle, we are not inclined to entertain the suspension of sentence application.

¶25