[2025:RJ-JP:26680] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1339/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1669/2023 Jernail Singh Alias Vicky Son Of Shri Sukhdev Singh, Resident Of Khotkheda, Police Station Taleda, District Bundi. (At Present The Accused/appellant Is Confined In The District Jail Bundi) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Laddha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Sigh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 16/07/2025 1. The second application for suspension of sentence is preferred in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 13.04.2023 in Sessions Case No.116/2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) No.1, Bundi whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N) of IPC and 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that appellant is an innocent person and after dismissal of first SOS application by this Hon’ble Court on 08.07.2024, the appellant has served some part of sentence. He also submitted that appellant has almost undergone 4 years 5 months against awarded sentence which is a fixed terms sentence [2025:RJ-JP:26680] (2 of 3) [SOSA-1339/2025] wherein this Hon’ble Supreme Court and this court have granted SOS to accused. He also submitted that the trial court has ignored the material available on record while drawing a conclusion on age of victim and determination of age is contrary to settled principle of law. He also referred the evidence of prosecution and submitted that the birth certificate of victim is not produced along with admission form and only on the basis of appearance, the age of victim is recorded at the time of admission in school. He also submitted that as per report Ex.P-1 victim has voluntarily left her home, who was later recovered. He further submitted that in identical facts in the case of Hemraj Meena @ Dhama Vs. State of Rajasthan in SOS application No.1210/2023 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.524/2023, this Hon’ble Court has also granted bail (SOS), where the age of victim is 14 to 16 years. He also submitted that no injuries were found on body of victim and admission of victim PW-3 clearly suggest that she was a consenting party. At last, he submitted that disposal of appeal will take time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He has submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. He also submitted that complainant victim is already informed. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On 18.07.2021, a MPR Ex.P-1 is lodged by PW-1 Father of victim, about missing of his daughter since 16.07.2021. The victim was recovered on 25.07.2021 and after recovery, her the medical was conducted by PW-6 Dr. Shivani, who prepared report Ex.P-5. [2025:RJ-JP:26680] (3 of 3) [SOSA-1339/2025] A charge-sheet has been filed against appellant. The prosecution has claimed date of birth of victim as 10.09.2005 on the basis of documents Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-11 which were exhibited and proved by PW-4 Rekha. The trial court has drawn a conclusion on the basis of evidence of PW-4. The age of PW-1 is between 15 to 16 years on date of incident, thus, she is a girl less than 16 years. 6. We have gone through the statement of PW-3 victim particularly her cross-examination wherein she admitted that compromise was stuck between her grandfather and Gurdeep Singh and accused is grandson of Grudeep. The statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is also exhibited as Ex.P-7 wherein she also narrated forcible rape by appellant. The victim remained firm about commission of physical relation of accused. 7. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and looking to positive evidence by victim, I am of considered view that this is not a fit case wherein indulgence of bail (SOS) can be granted to appellant on ground of period of custody or any other ground on merits. The order dated 10.08.2023 in case of Hemraj Meena @ Dhama Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) is not helpful as the facts of the case are different than present one. 8. Thus the application preferred by appellant Jernail Singh @ Vicky is hereby dismissed. Misc. application stands disposed of. 9. List for hearing in November, 2025. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /31