1
ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.6 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).15680/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-10-2023 in DBCRMSSA No. 1265/2023 in D.B. Crl. Appeal No.227/2023 passed by the High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jaipur)
BHAGIRATH MAL BALOUDA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 229330/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 02-02-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rishi Matoliya, AOR
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Raghuveer Pujari, Adv.
Mr. Rajnish Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Sumati Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Parthiv Kumar Goswami, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Neelmani Pant, AOR
Mr. Anuj Sharma, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard Mr. Rishi Matoliya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (informant). The respondent No.2 (accused) is represented by Mr. Parthiv Kumar Goswami, learned Senior Counsel.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the accused was absconding for 22 years and that is why, for him, the trial for the incident on 15.08.1998 could commence, only in the year 2021. It is then argued that the respondent No.2 also had a major role in assaulting the deceased. Accordingly the informants counsel would contend that the suspension of sentence should not have been ordered for the accused who was in custody for less than 3 years.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would say that respondent No.2 has not misused the liberty of bail after it was granted on 10.10.2023.
4. Having considered the basis for the impugned order, we see no reason to interfere.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
5. Pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
(DEEPAK JOSHI) (KAMLESH RAWAT)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR