Devraj Singh So Bagh Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:13575]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 594/2024

¶4

In

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.3598/2023

¶6

Devraj Singh So Bagh Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Ro Nagar, Police Station Niwai Sadar, Dist. Tonk (Raj) (At Present Appellant Are Confined In Tonk Jail)

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶10

Dhan Singh Rajput S/o Prabhu Singh, R/o Hanutiya Buzurg, P.S. Niwai Sadar, District Tonk Rajasthan

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Tyagi with Mr. Buddhi Prakash Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, PP with Mr. T.L. Pandey

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

¶14

Order

¶15

01/04/2026

¶16

Instant application for suspension of sentence has been preferred on behalf of the applicant-appellant under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. alongwith the appeal, to suspend the sentence awarded by the Court of learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Tonk vide its judgment dated 23.11.2023 in Sessions Case No.69/2021, whereby the applicant-appellant was convicted for the alleged offence(s) & sentenced to undergo maximum period of twenty years rigorous imprisonment with fine.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant–appellant submits that the applicant remained in custody for a certain period during the

[SOSA-594/2024]

[2026:RJ-JP:13575]

(2 of 3)

course of trial and was subsequently enlarged on bail and, presently, he is behind the bars since 23.11.2023. Counsel further submits that the victim is an adult and there were 155 telephonic interactions between the appellant & the victim at the time of alleged incident, as reflected in Exhibit P-43. The defence has produced Exhibits D-2, D-3 & D-12 in connection with the Investigation Officer, Exhibit D-12 is a ration card, which is stated to have been issued at the instance of the victim’s father in the year 2008, which reflects that the victim was approximately 7 years of age. The said fact has been admitted by the Investigating Officer, namely Datar Singh (P.W. 17), during the course of crossexamination. Counsel further contends that Exhibit D-3, being the school admission record of the victim, records the date of birth of the victim as 07.07.2009. The said document bears the signature of the victim’s father, the authenticity whereof stands admitted and also bears the signature of the victim herself, which ordinarily not obtain in the normal course of such admissions. Counsel further submits that prior to the alleged incident, there had been 1,375 telephonic interactions between the appellant & the victim and the appellant has a sufficient grounds for acquittal. Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case holistically and the hearing of the appeal will take its own time to conclude, hence, the sentence awarded to the applicant-appellant may be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the

¶23

(3 of 3) [SOSA-594/2024]

¶24

[2026:RJ-JP:13575]

¶25

submissions made herein-above and submitted that the

¶26

documents produced by the defence were not brought on record during the investigation. Hence, it is prayed that the application seeking suspension of sentence be dismissed.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material made available on record.

¶28

Taking into consideration the conviction, term of sentence & the submissions made at bar and without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to suspend the sentence awarded to the applicant-appellant during the pendency of the appeal.

¶29

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is, hereby, ordered that the execution of sentence awarded to accused-applicant, namely Devraj Singh S/o Bagh Singh, by the learned Trial Court shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- together with two sureties of Rs.25,000/each, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before this Court on 01.05.2026 and thereafter, as and when he is called upon to do so.

¶30

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶31

SAURABH /37

Devraj Singh So Bagh Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devraj Singh So Bagh Singh 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

Ashok Rawat S/O Sh. Narayan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Singh S/O Gangaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikas Yadav So Ramchandra Vs State of Rajasthan

Pappu Saini Son of Shri Phool Chand Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Harjendra Singh S/O Charan Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Tanwar S/O Shri Babulal Tanwar Vs State of Rajasthan