Vinod Son of Shri Dinesh Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:44174]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal 4^th Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1792/2025

¶4

In

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2716/2023

¶6

Vinod Son Of Shri Dinesh, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Bye-Pass Road, Siyaram Wali Gali, Khergarh, District Agra (U.p). (At Present Confined In Jail, Dholpur)

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Dushyant Jain.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary,PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶13

Order

¶14

03/11/2025

¶15

The fourth application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant - Vinod Son Of Shri Dinesh in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 29.08.2023 in Sessions Case No. 103/2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO ACT Cases) No.1, Alwar whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 354D, 506 IPC and 13/14 of POCSO Act and 67A and 67B of IT Act and sentenced accordingly.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that without observing principle of law learned trial court has arrived at a

[2025:RJ-JP:44174]

[SOSA-1792/2025]

(2 of 5)

conclusion of conviction. He further submitted that learned trial court has overlooked material contradictions and discrepancies, which goes to root of the matter. He further submitted that the entire case of prosecution rests on testimony of interested witness and no independent witness was examined to corroborate the story of prosecution.

¶21

Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has served more than 2 years 7 months and 25 days against awarded sentence of 5 years. He further submits that more than 50 percent of the sentence has been served by the petitioner and there is no likelihood that the appeal will be considered in near future.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

The first SOS application was dismissed on merits by this Court on 31.10.2023. Thereafter second SOS application was dismissed on 31.05.2024 on merits. The appellant has filed 3^rd SOS application and same was dismissed on 25.02.2025 and now this is 4^th SOS application.

¶25

The appellant is sentenced for offence under Sections 354D, 506 IPC, 13/14 of POCSO Act and Section 67A,

[2025:RJ-JP:44174]

[SOSA-1792/2025]

(3 of 5)

67B of IT Act. The maximum sentence awarded to petitioner is five years.

¶30

The custody certificate indicated that present appellant was released on bail during trial and was taken in custody after pronouncement of sentence. The appellant has served more than 2 years 7 months and 25 days and same is more than 50 percent of the awarded sentence.

¶31

In repolicy strategy of grant of bail SMWP (Criminal) No.04/2021 (order dated 08.05.2025) while considering the judgments in case of Bhagwam Rama Shinde Gosai And Ors vs State Of Gujarat (1999) 4 SCC 421, NCB Vs. Lakhwinder Singh 2025 SCC Online SC 366 and Atul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh (2024) 3 SCC 363 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that when there is a fixed period of sentence, normally the power of suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. should be exercised liberally, unless there are exceptional circumstances brought on record.

¶32

Having considered the fact that appellant has already served more than 50 percent of sentence awarded to appellant and disposal of appeal will take its own time, it is a fit case to enlarge appellant on bail.

¶33

At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case to enlarge appellant on bail.

[2025:RJ-JP:44174]

[SOSA-1792/2025]

(4 of 5)

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- Vinod Son Of Shri Dinesh 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 05.01.2026 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶38

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.

¶39

After release of appellant on bail, he will not contact or connect with victim or her family members in any manner.

¶40

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

¶41

That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶42