Moolchand Meena S/O Gyasiram Vs the State of Rajasthan

This suspension of sentence application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the accused-applicant (for brevity, “the applicant”) alongwith the appeal. The applicant has been convicted and sentenced by the Court of Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’) vide judgment dated 18.11.2025 passed in Sessions Case No.28/2023 (CIS No.78/2023) as under:-

¶16

(2 of 4) [SOSA-80/2026]

¶17

[2026:RJ-JP:5834-DB]

¶18

Under Section 377 IPC : Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default whereof, two months additional simple imprisonment.

¶19

Under Section 5L/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 : Life imprisonment and fine of ₹10,000/- in default whereof, two months additional simple imprisonment.

¶20

Under Section 5M/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 : Life imprisonment and fine of ₹10,000/- in default whereof, two months additional simple imprisonment.

¶21

Sentences to run concurrently.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has falsely been implicated in this case with the aid of Section 319 Cr.P.C. otherwise, the Investigating Agency has, after thorough investigation, submitted negative final report against him. He further submits that co-accused Sahab Singh, whose semen was found on the underwear of the victim, has already been extended benefit of suspension of sentence by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.02.2023 on the grounds, inter alia, delay in lodging the FIR without any justifiable reason, absence of semen in the vaginal swab and vaginal smear of the victim and the allegations not been medically corroborated. He contends that case of the applicant is on much better footing than the case of co-accused Sahab Singh. Learned counsel submits that the applicant is about 66 years old, was on bail during trial with no allegation of its misuse. He, therefore, prays that the suspension of sentence application be allowed.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.

[2026:RJ-JP:5834-DB]

[SOSA-80/2026]

(3 of 4)

Heard. Considered.

Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, material on record, release of co-accused Sahab Singh on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.02.2023, he being on bail during trial with no allegation of its misuse and the possibility of hearing of the appeal taking time, we deem it just and proper to allow the suspension of sentence application.

¶29

In view thereof, the suspension of sentence application is allowed. Substantive sentences awarded to the applicant by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 18.11.2025 shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal and the applicant- Moolchand Meena S/o Gyasiram shall be released on bail provided that he furnishes bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to the effect that he shall appear before this Court on or before 09.03.2026 and as and when called upon to do so till disposal of the appeal and subject to the following conditions:-

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

Similarly, if the surety(ies) change(s) his/their address(es), he/they will give in writing his/their changed address to the learned trial Court.

¶33

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file(s). Such file(s) be

[2026:RJ-JP:5834-DB]

[SOSA-80/2026]

(4 of 4)

registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused-applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file(s) shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of the cases in the learned trial Court. In case, the said accused-applicant does not appear before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of benefit extended by this order.

¶38

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶39

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶40

DIKSHA /20

Moolchand Meena S/O Gyasiram v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moolchand Meena S/O Gyasiram v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deva @ Devalal Vs State

Bhawani Singh S/O Bhanwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Latoorlal S/O Sh. Anandi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Manraji Devi Wife of Late Jagdish Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Anjali W/O Shri Ravi Singh Vs State of Rajasthan