[2025:RJ-JP:7531] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application No.2159/2024 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.372/2024 Amarchand @ Chandu S/o Shri Boduram, R/o Karad P.S. Dataramgarh, District Sikar (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Malik, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/02/2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for second suspension of execution of sentence. Perused the material available on record. 2. The applicant-appellant herein has been convicted for offences under Section 366 of IPC and Sections 5g/6 of POCSO Act vide judgment dated 10.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (Raj.) in Sessions Case No.33/2020 (CIS No.129/2020) and has been sentenced to punishment of twenty years. [2025:RJ-JP:7531] (2 of 5) [SOSA-2159/2024] 3. The first application for suspension of execution of sentence of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn. Thus, this second application for suspension of execution of sentence has been preferred on behalf of the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial Court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant as mentioned above. Learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in right and correct perspective. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that neither the appellant was named in the FIR, nor in the statement of victim recorded during the course of trial under Section 164 Cr.PC. He further argues that it is admitted by the Investigating Officer that no test identification parade was conducted. It appears from the testimony of the victim that very specific question was put before her with regard to the persons who committed rape upon her and she clearly stated that three persons namely- Nepal Singh, Prakash and Raj committed rape upon her and no allegation was levelled against the appellant. Counsel relies upon the case of Robin Meena vs. State of Rajasthan arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.5226/2024, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 10.02.2025 wherein after considering the fact that accused has suffered incarceration of about 1 year and 11 months facility of bail was granted to him during pendency of appeal. Counsel relies upon another case of Rohit Singh vs. State of U.P arising out of Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2883/2024, decided by Hon’ble Apex Court on 02.08.2024, wherein after considering the fact that trial court [2025:RJ-JP:7531] (3 of 5) [SOSA-2159/2024] sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment and his appeal is pending before the High Court, granted facility of bail to the accused by observing that the accused has already undergone more than 6 years of sentence. He submits that appellant has suffered incarceration of about five years. He further submits that looking to the large pendency of criminal appeals before this Court, there is no immediate prospect of hearing and disposal of the appeal in near future. He argues that possibility cannot be ruled out that by the time this appeal will be taken up for the final hearing, appellant would have served the entire sentence. He further argues that appeal against the conviction is statutory right and same would be frustrated, if appeal presented against the conviction is not heard and decided within a reasonable period. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for appellant. She submits that after withdrawing the first application for suspension of execution of sentence, there is no material change in circumstances. 6. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant as noted above and having regard to the facts and circumstances as available on the record, especially considering the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Robin Meena (supra) and Rohit Singh (supra) whereby in identical circumstances benefit of suspension of execution of sentence has been granted to the accused persons; appellant has suffered incarceration of about five years, so also considering the fact that there is no immediate prospect of hearing and disposal of the appeal in near future as well as looking to the large pendency [2025:RJ-JP:7531] (4 of 5) [SOSA-2159/2024] of criminal appeals before this Court, but without making any comment on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has available to him strong grounds to assail the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Thus, it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused appellant during pendency of the instant appeal. 7. Accordingly, the application for second suspension of sentence filed under Section 430 of BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (Raj.) (Raj.) vide judgment dated 10.01.2024 in Sessions Case No.33/2020 (CIS No.129/2020) against the appellant-applicant Amarchand @ Chandu S/o Shri Boduram shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he 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 20.03.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant 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. [2025:RJ-JP:7531] (5 of 5) [SOSA-2159/2024] 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), he will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 8. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related 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 shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicant does not appear before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/15