State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor v. For

: Mr. Ajay Singh Yaduvanshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 31/07/2025 Order

1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant - Ramdayal S/o Ram Prasad in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated

17.09.2019 in Sessions Case No.374/2018 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) No.4, Kota whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 366, 376(2)(n), 341 and 323 IPC and sentenced accordingly.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated by complainant. He further submitted that as per report, victim was forcibly kidnapped and wrongfully confined with intention to marry by accused. He further submitted [2025:RJ-JP:29576] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1477/2025] that victim was allegedly kidnapped on 27.05.2017 and she was returned to her place on 04.06.2017 but report was registered on

07.06.2017 which shows that after substantial delay a report is filed and delay is not explained by the prosecution. He also submitted that there is no proof that victim was ever kidnapped and wrongfully confined at the place, mentioned in the report. He further submitted that the trial court has determined the age of victim and found her to be an adult and appellant was acquitted from charge under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act. He also submitted that no injuries were found on body of victim and there is no FSL report to corroborate the allegations of victim. He further referred the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and also as a witness PW-1 before the trial court and submitted that the victim has not raised any alarm while moving in public and she returned on her own to her place. He further submitted that appellant is in custody for more than 9 years and disposal of appeal will take its own time.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificate along with intimation slip and same are taken on record.

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

5. On the basis of report, Ex.P-1 filed by PW-2 father of victim about kidnapping of his daughter on 27.05.2017 and further keeping wrongfully confined at the place of sister of appellant, from where victim returned on 04.06.2017, FIR No. 90/2017 was registered at P.S. Kanwas, Dist. Kota. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against appellant. After framing charge, [2025:RJ-JP:29576] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1477/2025] prosecution has examined 20 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but he has not submitted any defence evidence.

6. The first SOS application of appellant was dismissed by this Court on 12.09.2023 when the period of custody including remission was around 7 years. We have considered the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and also statement of PW-1 (victim) recorded by the trial court. According to PW-1, her age is 15 to 17 years and as per father of victim PW- 2, the age of victim is 14 years. PW-3 Devkaran (teacher), examined before the trial court has deposed that date of birth of victim is 07.05.2001. The trial court has considered statement of other witnesses and drawn conclusion that the age of victim is 17- 18 years but the trial court has ruled that age of victim is not below 18 years, thus she was found as an adult on date of incident. We have considered statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-8).

7. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:29576] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1477/2025]

8. The appellant is in custody for more than 9 years 2 months and 11 days and maximum sentence awarded is 20 years. It is apparent that appellant has served more than 45% of sentence, therefore looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case to enlarge appellant on bail.

9. 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-Ramdayal S/o Ram Prasad is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would executes a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/-with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 22.08.2025 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.

2. That the appellant accused shall not contact or connect directly or indirectly with victim or any of her family member.

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

4. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed [2025:RJ-JP:29576] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1477/2025] address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

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

5. In case, the applicant has violated any condition, then the order of SOS shall be recalled and cancelled.

10. Misc. Application stands disposed of.

11. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. PREETI VALECHA /11 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J