// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN D.B. Cr. Misc. (SOS) Bail Appl. No.1215/2008 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1193/2008 {Chhigan and Others Vs. The State of Rajasthan through PP} Date of Order ::: 12.01.2009 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Hon'ble Mr. Justice Guman Singh Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Counsel for appellants Shri B.K. Sharma, PP, for the State Shri Anoop Dhand, Counsel for complainant #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the First Information Report was lodged by eye-witness PW-3 Sunhari Devi, wherein there was allegation of causing injury on the person of deceased by accused Chhigan and there was no allegation of causing injury by accused Raju @ Rajaram, whereas the trial court convicted accused Chhigan and Raju @ Rajaram, both, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201, IPC, and other two accused-persons have been convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC, therefore, there are contradictions in the statements of the // 2 // prosecution witnesses, and this is a fit case for grant of suspension of sentence of the accused persons during the pendency of the appeal. The application has been opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the written-report as well as the statement of PW-3 Sunhari Devi and also the statements of other prosecution witnesses and, after considering the same, but without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, we are of the view that so far as the application filed on behalf of accused Chhigan is concerned we are not inclined to suspend his sentence of imprisonment but, so far as remaining other three accused are concerned, we find their case to be fit one for suspension of their sentence of imprisonment. Consequently, the application is partly allowed. The application filed on behalf of accused Chhigan Son of Chhoturam is dismissed. The application filed on behalf of accused Raju @ Rajaram Son of Shri Chhigan, Pavan @ Punia Son of Shri Chhigan and Prakash Son of Chhigan, is allowed. // 3 // It is, therefore, ordered that the sentence of imprisonment of the accused – (1) Raju @ Rajaram, (2) Pavan @ Punia, and (3) Prakash – All Sons of Chhigan, residents of Jagdish Mod, Ajitgarh, Police Station Ajitgarh, District Sikar (At present confined in Central Jail, Jaipur) passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.2, Sikar Camp-Srimadhopur, vide its judgment and order dated 19.11.2008, in Sessions Case No.08/2006, shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court to the effect that they shall appear before this court on 13th February, 2009 and as and when called upon to do so. (Guman Singh) J. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//