State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp v. For

Ms. Harshita Sharma Ms. Swadha Bhargava For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP Mr. Dinesh Chand Sharma Mr. Sajid Ali. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 23/05/2025 Order

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred in pending appeal which was admitted on 09.10.2024 and aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated

12.09.2024 in Sessions Case No. 20/2023 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act cases no.3, Alwar whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 376(2)(N) and 506 IPC and sentenced accordingly.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated by [2025:RJ-JP:21905] (2 of 5) [SOSA-232/2025] complainant to recover money. He further referred the fact in report Ex. P/3 filed by PW-1 prosecutrix and submitted that for incident of 13.07.2020 a report was lodged on 12.05.2021 but without explaining reasons of delay. He further submitted that prior to registration of current FIR another report about cheating and breach of trust was registered in January, 2021 and same is also exhibited by him. He also referred the facts of the case and submitted that the victim is a 47 year old literate female working in a government sector and having two adult kids have made a complaint after a delay of nearly 10 months and after dispute about financial transaction and it clearly indicate that just to settled the score and convert the case of money transaction into a criminal affair, the instant case is registered. He further referred the statement of PW-1 prosecutrix and PW-3 hotel manager and submitted that the prosecutrix has stayed in a hotel with present appellant in a good and cheerful mood wherein she has submitted her ID and also consumed liquor with appellant. He further submitted that the cross-examination of PW-1 is sufficient to dent the case of prosecution and disbelieve the allegations of PW-1. He further referred the evidence of PW-15 and submitted that the CDR of mobile phones of both appellant and prosecutrix clearly indicate a regular conversation and chat between them. He further referred the civil suit filed by prosecutrix to recover money and submitted that only to settled score instant case was registered. He further referred the statement of doctor and submitted that no injuries were found on body of victim. He further submitted that the evidence of prosecutrix is not trustworthy and the trial court has committed serious error while convicting the appellant [2025:RJ-JP:21905] (3 of 5) [SOSA-232/2025] accused. At last, he submitted that appellant was on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant submitted that the appellant has captured the video/photograph and was regularly intimidating the victim about the incident so she has not muster courage to lodge a report just after the incident. He also submitted that the appellant accused was having a malicious intention towards victim. At last, he submitted that there are glaring facts and it is not a fit case wherein appellant accused be released on bail

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

5. On the basis of report Ex. P/3 lodged by victim PW-1 FIR no. 150/2021 under Sections 376, 420, 406, 120, 506 IPC was registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, District Alwar on 12.05.2021. During investigation victim was medically examined and her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After investigation police has filed a charge-sheet against the appellant accused. After framing the charge the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and exhibited 45 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he submitted DW-1 Dr. Vandana Yadav (wife of appellant) as defence witness and exhibited Ex D/1. The accused was convicted under Section 376(2)(N) and 506 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and two months respectively with fine.

6. This appellant accused was released on bail in pursuant to order dated 09.11.2021 in bail application no. 17744/2021 passed [2025:RJ-JP:21905] (4 of 5) [SOSA-232/2025] by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The facts indicate that the age of victim is 45 years on date of incident and she is a married women having two children aged 20 years and 17 years. The occupation of this victim is government teacher. The husband of victim was examined as PW-2 whereas wife of appellant accused is examined as DW-1. We have considered the statement of all prosecution witnesses referred by learned counsel for the parties. The admission of PW-15 clearly indicate that the victim has registered a case about financial transaction at P.S. Rajgarh as case no. 67/2021. The cross-examination of victim also indicate that prior to registration of present case the case was registered at Rajgarh.

7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, but considering totality of facts of circumstances of the case, 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- Vishal Kumar Jangid S/o Shri Vijay Kumar @ Tejpal, 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 08.09.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:21905] (5 of 5) [SOSA-232/2025]

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

3. That if the applicant(s) 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.

4. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. Misc. Application stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E-

9. mail. CHETNA BEHRANI /9(SOSA) (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J