Second suspension-of-sentence application by an appellant convicted under the POCSO Act and Section 384 IPC. The court found the heinous nature of the offence, prior adjournments delaying the appeal, and another pending conviction against him; it declined bail and dismissed the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 1943/2024
in
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 860/2019
Rameez Raja S/o Shri Abdul Waheed, Aged About 27 Years, R/o House No 7B, Ghoda Nikas Road, Opposite Milk Diary, Ramganj, Jaipur Raj. (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Prathistha Sunger For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aniroodh Mathur Mr. Naman Yadav Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, AGC cum PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
13/02/2025
(2 of 6) [SOSA-1943/2024]
eight years and seven months. She also submits that for another one year or so there is no likelihood of hearing of appeal filed by present appellant. She further referred the act alleged against the appellant and submitted that after a delay of five years the victim has narrated the incident to his family member and then only a report was registered. At last, she submitted that the appellant is entitled for bail only on the ground that he has already served nearly 90% of sentence, awarded.
(3 of 6)
[SOSA-1943/2024]
9/10, 11/12 of POCSO Act. The maximum sentence awarded was
10 years under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.
18.05.2023 this Court has passed the following order:
The fact of the matter is that the appellantaccused was arrested on 18.05.2017 and since then he is in custody. Thus, he had completed a term of nearly six years. Apart from this, he earned remission. Total sentence awarded in present matter is 10 years so more than 60% of the sentence has already undergone by appellant.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh (supra) while referring to heinous nature of crime as per the Uttar Pradesh jail standing policy have observed as under:-
“In these suggestions, there
are some exceptions sought to
be carved out which have been extracted as under:-
(a) Prohibited categories: To ensure public peace and the well-being of the society, life convicts who are hardened criminals, repeat offenders, kidnappers, in crimes related to massacre (three or more than three murders), habitual criminals, and fall in prohibited categories as per the U.P. Jail Standing Policy-no bail should be granted.”
We are also conscious of a scenario where an appeal comes up for hearing and the appellant may be seeking adjournment rather than arguing the appeal. That case
[SOSA-1943/2024]
(4 of 6)
certainly would not be one for grant of bail as the Court is willing to bestow consideration on the merits of the appeal.
We are also in agreement that the convict must approach the High Court first as otherwise this Court is being unnecessary burdened but then there must be a mechanism to see that if he approaches the High Court, those bail applications are listed promptly.
In the conspectus of our broad observations, it is incumbent on the High Court to place before us as to how they propose to see that the cases mentioned aforesaid are taken up for consideration for grant of bail.
We may note that there may be even convicts in custody in cases other than life sentence cases and in those cases again the broad parameter of 50 per cent of the actual sentence undergone can be the basis for
grant of bail.”
It is quite clear from record that when appeal was listed, time was sought for argument then obviously the appellant is not entitled for bail. On perusal of present appeal, it appears that on multiple occasions adjournment was sought on behalf of appellant and the matter was adjourned, resulting into non disposal of appeal.
The criminal record clearly indicated that apart from present case one more Case No.94/2017, P.S. Ramganj was registered against present
(5 of 6)
[SOSA-1943/2024]
appellant on similar or more grievous charges and according to learned counsel in this matter, appeal is pending before the Division Bench of this court.
When we consider the evidence as referred by learned counsels during argument then it is admission of Investigating Officer that no video was recovered from possession of present appellant-accused but the evidence suggests that in recovered video accused was seen as involved in sexual exploitation of children.
Aforesaid clearly indicated that this is a case of sexual exploitation of children and this type of act, which was explained by victim PW2 in his deposition clearly establishes the heinous and gruesome act of present appellant. The present appellant was involved in sexual exploitation of children which is a serious offence, particularly when appellant was teacher of children. The manner of recording (as per PW2) of video is again a serious issue. The evidence of PW2 clearly suggests that before committing unnatural sex with PW2, he would show him obscene videos of other children after undressing himself. The manner in which the alleged crime has been committed, speaks for itself that the appellant’s horrendous acts are highly unacceptable and unbecoming of a teacher as he misused the naive children in making obscene videos. A teacher works in a dual capacity primarily as a facilitator of developing a child’s knowledge and secondly, as a guardian in providing a secured atmosphere to children. Therefore, in view of allegations as proved before learned trial court the act of present appellant is such that a lenient approach cannot be considered for this type of perpetrator, hence, present appellant is not entitled to get benefit of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
while dismissing fist SOS application this Court has already considered period of incarceration undergone by present petitioner. After dismissal of first SOS application, the petitioner has further undergone period of one year and nine months. Now,
(6 of 6)
[SOSA-1943/2024]
the total period undergone by petitioner is eight year seven months and nine days. A perusal of judgment in case of Saudan Singh (supra), indicate that some exceptions were carved out, thus ratio in case of Saudan Singh (supra) is not applicable in the present case.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
Chetna/1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a second suspension-of-sentence application should be granted to a convict who has served over eight years and seven months of a ten-year sentence for offences under the POCSO Act and Section
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Saudan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar PradeshDistinguished¶7
Saudan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 308/2022)
Mujassim Vs. The State of Uttar PradeshRelied on¶8
Mujassim Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh SLP (Criminal) no. 9252/2024
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Rameez Raja
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
Ashok Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
