Allowed

Mukesh Son of Shri Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Apr 2025SOSA/1685/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's suspension of sentence application. Reserving opinion on merits, the Court observed the appellant had served over three years on bail without misuse. Sentence of five years is suspended pending appeal disposal subject to bond conditions and appearance requirements.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of five years suspended till disposal of appeal; appellant required to execute personal bond with sureties and appear every January and whenever ordered.

Mukesh Son of Shri Ramesh Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:17256]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1685/2022

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2567/2022

¶6

Mukesh Son Of Shri Ramesh, Resident Of Molanapura Police Station Tereaeya District Chhapra Bihar Presently Shiv Watika Makan Number G-002 Star Hospital Ke Pas, Bhiwari Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Alwar).

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Liyakat Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶13

Order

¶14

23/04/2025

¶15

The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant Mukesh Son Of Shri Ramesh aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 16.12.2021 in Sessions Case No.24/2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) No.4, Alwar whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 7/8, 9M/10 and 11/12 of PCOSO Act and sentenced accordingly.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that appellant is innocent person and he was falsely implicated by complainant party. He further submitted that appellant is not having any criminal antecedents. He submitted

[2025:RJ-JP:17256]

[SOSA-1685/2022]

(2 of 4)

only on suspicion, the appellant was charge-sheeted. He also referred the period of custody and submitted that till date the appellant has undergone three years 8 months and 12 days against the sentence which is five years in the instant case. At last, he submitted that appellant was on bail during trial and he never misused the liberty granted to him.

¶21

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificate along with report received from concerned police station and same are taken on record.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶23

On the basis of report Ex.P-3 filed by mother of 7 years old victim, FIR NO.03/2020 was registered under Section 354 IPC. During investigation, accused was arrested on 08.01.2020 and statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 14.01.2020 and exhibited as Ex.P-1. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against the appellant. After framing of charge, learned trial court has examined six witnesses and exhibited 7 documents. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he opted not to submit any defence evidence. After considering the material placed on record, appellant was convicted under Sections 7/8, 9M/10 and 11/12 of POCSO Act and maximum sentence awarded to present appellant is 5 years.

¶24

The appellant was released on bail during trial in pursuant to order dated 20.01.2020 in bail application No.21/2020 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) No.1, Alwar.

[2025:RJ-JP:17256]

[SOSA-1685/2022]

(3 of 4)

We have considered the statement of victim recorded as PW1 and also her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The appellant has served more than 3 years 8 months 12 days till date. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case but looking to the fact that appellant was released on bail at very early stay before trial could commence and also the fact that appellant has served around 70 percent of the sentence, therefore it is appropriate to allow SOS application. 8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellant accused- Mukesh Son Of Shri Ramesh is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 01.08.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶29

After release of appellant on bail, he will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that he is involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled.

¶30

That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

¶31

That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:17256]

[SOSA-1685/2022]

address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶36

Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

¶37

Misc. Application stands disposed of.

¶38

A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail.

¶39

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶40

PREETI VALECHA /24

Mukesh Son of Shri Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Son of Shri Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deendayal Son of Ramswaroop Vs State of Rajasthan

Aslam Khan @ Ashu S/O Munawwar Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Singh S/O Sh. Ganpat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Seema @ Sudha W/O Satish D/O Makhan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ram Karan Son of Shri Jaggu Ram Vs Ladli Das Son of Shri Ramdev

Ghanshyam S/O Kanaram Bairwa Vs Ramesh S/O Kesarlal