Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20526 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP No. 1596 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal No. 437 of 2022 Decided on: 30.06.2025 _____________________________________________________ Bhagat Ram …..Appellant/applicant. versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……Respondent/non-applicant. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. _____________________________________________________ For the applicant: Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate. For the non-applicant/State: Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Navlesh Verma, Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Additional Advocates General, and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. This order shall dispose of application, filed by the applicant/appellant Bhagat Ram, under Section 430 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking suspension of sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court (RAPE/POCSO), Shimla, H.P., vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 29.10.2022, in Case RBT No. 136-S/7 of 2018/21, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(I) and 452 of the Indian Penal 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20526 ) 2 Code (for short ‘IPC’) and releasing him on bail. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant contended that the applicant has already undergone sentence of more than nine years, against the total awarded sentence of ten years. He further contended that the appeal is likely to take considerable time for its disposal, as such, the instant application may be allowed and the applicant, be released on bail during the pendency of the instant appeal. He also pointed out various discrepancies and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He also contended that the learned Court below had failed to take into consideration the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Additional Advocate General contended that the applicant/appellant is not entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the present appeal, as he has been convicted in a serious offence. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also gone through the material available on record. 5. The perusal of the record reveals that the learned Trial Court convicted, the appellant/applicant under Section 376(2)(I) of Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20526 ) 3 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further simple imprisonment for a period of twelve months. The appellant/applicant was also convicted under Section 452 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and after going through the entire evidence on record, which has been considered prima facie for the purpose of adjudicating the instant application, we are of the opinion that the applicant/appellant has made out a case for suspension of sentence imposed upon him. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai vs. State of Gujrat (1999) 4 SCC 421 held that when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he filed an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the Appellate Court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under: Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20526 ) 4 “3. When a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he filed an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of course if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is an different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of a limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavor should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when a motion of expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously the appellate court must bestow special concern in the matter of suspending the sentence. So as to make the appeal right, meaningful and effective. Of course appellate courts can impose similar conditions when bail is granted.” 7. The perusal of record reveals that the applicant/appellant has already undergone sentence of more than seven years, as against the total awarded sentence of ten years. The perusal of the record further reveals that the instant appeal is of the year 2022 and the same is not likely to be decided in near future and there is also nothing on record to suggest that the delay in deciding the appeal is attributable to the applicant/appellant. 8. Therefore, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant/appellant, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.10.2022 deserves to be suspended. Accordingly, the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant/appellant, vide judgment of conviction and order of Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20526 ) 5 sentence dated 29.10.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (RAPE/POCSO), Shimla, H.P., in Case RBT No. 136-S/7 of 2018/21, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the appeal, however, subject to the applicant’s furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court and also subject to the deposit of the fine amount, if not, already deposited. On furnishing the requisite bail bonds and on depositing the fine amount, he be released forthwith, however, with the undertaking to appear before this Court as and when directed and in the event of the dismissal of the appeal, the applicant/appellant will surrender before the Court. 9. Be it stated that any expression of opinion while disposing of the instant application shall not be construed to be an opinion expressed on the merits of the appeal, which shall be adjudicated on its own merits. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 30th June, 2025 (virender) Digitally signed by VIRENDER BAHADUR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone= 3c5f9e29e91dda973d928ffd06d59832d2dd97b9e289811 7bfa738990a0ea7ba, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= fed3018c26866cd3d598cb3749b3fb29d4abef4b8498368 9d027cb645c9bb134, CN=VIRENDER BAHADUR Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2025.06.30 16:36:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 VIRENDER BAHADUR