Order : ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. These suspension of sentence applications were preferred on behalf of accused appellants-applicants (1) Ravindra Kumar @ Dabbu son of Shri Hardevaram (2) Naveen Kumar son of Shri Banwari Lal (3) Dholuram @ Dholiya son of Ghasiram (4) Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Khyaliram (5) Roshan Lal son of Shri Madan Lal (6) Manoj Nayak S/o Shri Surendra (7) Hansraj S/o Shri Shankarlal and (8) Dharamveer Singh @ Pintu son of Shri Babulal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellants’) in pending appeals filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.01.2025 in Sessions Case No.27/2019 (46/2016) arising out of FIR No.50/2016 registered at Police Station Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar whereby nine accused including present appellants were convicted and sentenced under Sections 395 , 412 and 120-B of IPC . 2. Learned counsel for the appellants while relying upon grounds of appeals submit that eye-witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Learned counsel further referred the statement of the security guard posted at ATM and submit that he has also turned hostile and not identified any of accused. They also referred the prosecution evidence and submit that all these accused were implicated only on basis of recovery of cash from their home. They further submit that the Investigating Officer has also shown recovery of some ATM parts from some of the accused but only on basis of recovery, these accused were linked with incident of 06.02.2016. They further submit that as per statement of prosecution witnesses, currency notes in the denomination of ?1000/- and ?500/- were stored in ATM whereas recovery memo shows that currency notes in the denomination of ?100/- were also recovered, which were not stored in ATM. They further submit that the currency notes neither identifiable nor their numbers were mentioned by prosecution witnesses, therefore, the appellants cannot be linked with the incident. Learned counsel further submit that all these appellants were students at the time of incident and without any basis, they were forwarded to face trial. At last, they submit that the appellants were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted custody certificate along with criminal antecedents of the accused appellants. 4. At last, they submit that the appellants were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted custody certificate along with criminal antecedents of the accused appellants. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On basis of a written report dated 06.02.2016 by complainant Shakti Singh (PW-17) about robbery of ATM and thereby causing a loss of ?12,23,500/-, wherein robbers also abducted Security Guard Ameer Solanki and dumped him after 1.5-2 kms, FIR No.50/2016 was registered at Police Station Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar. After investigation, Police has filed charge-sheet and 12 persons have faced trial before learned trial court. During trial, one accused Kamlesh Kumar expired, so proceedings were dropped against him. During trial, 33 witnesses were examined and 74 documents were exhibited by prosecution. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC and they have not submitted any defence evidence. Learned trial court has acquitted Banwari Lal from charge under Section 412 IPC and Smt. Santosh Devi from charges under Sections 395 , 412 and 120B of IPC but convicted Sunil Kumar, Dharamveer Singh @ Pintu, Ravindra Kumar @ Dabbu, Dholuram @ Dholia, Manoj Nayak, Pawan Kumar, Naveen Kumar, Roshan Lal and Hansraj under Sections 395 , 412 and 120B of IPC . Maximum punishment awarded to each of the accused is eight years. 6. A perusal of record indicate that total 9 criminal cases were registered against Dharamveer @ Pintu and it includes present case as well whereas 6 criminal cases were registered against Roshan Lal. One of the accused Pawan Kumar, who has not filed suspension of sentence application, is also facing charge-sheet in 19 criminal cases. The record further indicate that 2 criminal cases were registered against Sunil Kumar, Dholu Ram @ Dholia, Ravindra Kumar @ Dabbu and Manoj Nayak. As per record, there were 4 criminal cases against Naveen Kumar but no criminal record is found against Hansraj. 7. While considering the criminal record of Ravindra Kumar, Sunil Kumar, Dholu Ram and Manoj Nayak, it is also clear that present case is also included in criminal antecedents. Similarly, the present case is also included in the list against Naveen Kumar Meena and Roshan Lal. 7. While considering the criminal record of Ravindra Kumar, Sunil Kumar, Dholu Ram and Manoj Nayak, it is also clear that present case is also included in criminal antecedents. Similarly, the present case is also included in the list against Naveen Kumar Meena and Roshan Lal. Considering the criminal background, it is apparent that two cases were registered against Roshan Lal in year 2019 and one of them was under Section 307 IPC whereas last case was registered against Naveen Kumar in year 2018 under Sections 323 and 341 IPC . All these accused were on bail during trial. 8. The accused appellants Dharamveer Singh and Roshan Lal are having criminal background and they are having more than 5 cases other than present one, therefore, looking to criminal background of these accused, they are not entitled for suspension of sentence, in the instant case. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State Through C.B.I vs Amaramani Tripathi : (2005) 8 SCC 21 has held that the Court to consider criminal antecedents of any person at the time of consideration bail and same is followed thereafter in several other cases. 10. Having gone through the evidence on record, particularly, cross-examination of witnesses and also considering the discrepancies and contradictions as referred by learned counsel for the parties, at this stage, it is not possible to express any opinion on merits of the case but looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that except accused appellants Roshan Lal son of Shri Madan Lal and Dharamveer Singh @ Pintu son of Shri Babulal , all other accused appellants Ravindra Kumar @ Dabbu son of Shri Hardevaram, Naveen Kumar son of Shri Banwari Lal, Dholuram @ Dholiya son of Ghasiram, Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Khyaliram, Manoj Nayak S/o Shri Surendra & Hansraj S/o Shri Shankarlal are entitled for suspension of sentence (bail). 11. In view of discussion made hereinabove, S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application No. 323/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.397/2025 filed by Roshan Lal son of Shri Madan Lal and S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application No. 466/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.565/2025 filed by Dharamveer Singh @ Pintu son of Shri Babulal are hereby dismissed. 12. 11. In view of discussion made hereinabove, S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application No. 323/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.397/2025 filed by Roshan Lal son of Shri Madan Lal and S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application No. 466/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.565/2025 filed by Dharamveer Singh @ Pintu son of Shri Babulal are hereby dismissed. 12. S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application No. 324/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.398/2025 filed by Ravindra Kumar @ Dabbu Son of Shri Hardevaram and Naveen Kumar Son of Shri Banwari Lal, S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application No. 321/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.395/2025 filed by Dholuram @ Dholiya Son of Ghasiram, S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application No. 322/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.396/2025 filed by Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Khyaliram and S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 399/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.493/2025 filed by Manoj Nayak S/o Shri Surendra and Hansraj S/o Shri Shankarlal are hereby allowed and it is ordered that sentence of appellants- applicants accused (1) Ravindra Kumar @ Dabbu son of Shri Hardevaram, (2) Naveen Kumar son of Shri Banwari Lal, (3) Dholuram @ Dholiya son of Ghasiram, (4) Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Khyaliram, (5) Manoj Nayak S/o Shri Surendra & (6) Hansraj S/o Shri Shankarlal is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of them would execute a personal bond in the sum of ?50,000/- with two sureties of ?25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this Court on 24.07.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That the appellants accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and not repeat crime of any nature during period of suspension of sentence/bail. 2. That the appellants will appear before the Trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 3. That if the appellants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 5. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 13. 3. That if the appellants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 5. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 13. In case, the applicant has violated any condition then the order of suspension of sentence shall be recalled and cancelled. 14. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 15. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E-mail.