[2025:RJ-JP:25452] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal 4th Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 538/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.367/22020 Suresh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Mangilal Meena, R/o Maindwas Phagi, Tehsil And Distt. Jaipur Raj. (Accused Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Sh Mangilal Jat S/o Sh. Hardev Jat, Resident Of Hirnoda Phulera Jaipur Rural, Rajasthan India ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma Ms. Sunita Vashishth For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 08/07/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant-Suresh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Mangilal Meena in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 21.01.2020 in Sessions Case No.148/2018 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases), Jaipur whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that there is no eye-witness of the incident as victim has died in said accident. He further submitted that [2025:RJ-JP:25452] (2 of 4) [SOSA-538/2025] appellant was also charged with offence under Sections 279 and 304A IPC but was acquitted by learned trial court and complainant or the State has not preferred any appeal to challenge the order of acquittal. He further submitted that the conviction is based on DNA report and collection of sample is doubtful. He also referred the age of victim and submitted that same is not proved by the prosecution. He further submitted that appellant is in custody for last more than 6 years and presently he is pressing for consideration of SOS only on ground of period of custody. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. The first SOS Application was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 10.08.2021 whereas second was dismissed on 24.02.2023 and third was dismissed on 24.07.2024. Now the fourth SOS application is preferred. The complainant has already been informed by PS Phulera and no one is present on behalf of complainant. 6. On the basis of report, Ex.P-4 filed by PW-4 Mangilal, FIR No. 178/2018 was rgeistered at P.S. Phulera , Dist. Jaipur. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against appellant. After framing charge, prosecution has examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but he has not submitted any defence evidence but exhibited one document in defence. A co-ordinate Bench has considered the grounds on merits in three previous [2025:RJ-JP:25452] (3 of 4) [SOSA-538/2025] SOS applications therefore we are not inclined to consider grounds on merits. Otherwise, also the question of determination of age and also FSL report are subject matter to be considered at the time of final adjudication and not at this stage. 7. After dismissal of SOS application on 10.08.2021, appellant has filed SLP (Criminal) No.8995/2021 before Hon’ble Supreme Court and on 15.02.2022 SLP was dismissed. While dismissing the SLP (Criminal), a liberty was granted to appellant in case the appeal is not considered and disposed of within six months, the appellant would be at liberty to make an application for bail. After dismissal of SLP (Criminal) by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are considering this SOS application after 3 years 5 months. 8. 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. 9. The custody certificate suggest that appellant has undergone more than 6 years 8 months 27 days against awarded sentence of 10 years. The consideration of appeal will take its own time, therefore it is appropriate to release appellant on bail. 10. Therefore, the application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellant accused-Suresh Kumar [2025:RJ-JP:25452] (4 of 4) [SOSA-538/2025] Meena S/o Shri Mangilal Meena 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 30.10.2025 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 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), he will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 11. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 12. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /44