[2025:RJ-JP:42302] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1867/2025 IN S.B. Criminal Appeal No.153/2023 Viresh Son Of Shripal, Resident Of Paliya Patti, Police Station Jaitipur, District Shahjahanpur (Uttar Pradesh), At Present Rajjak Colony, Bilahedi, Police Station Bhiwadi Phase -Iii, District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Preeti Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gutpa, Asstt. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 14/10/2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and learned State counsel on the application for suspension of execution of sentence. 2. The applicant-appellant herein has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376AB, 323 & 342 of IPC vide judgment dated 18.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & Commission for Child Rights Protection Act, 2005, No.4, Alwar (Raj.) in Sessions Case No.31/2021 (CIS No.44/2021) and has been sentenced to maximum punishment of ten years. 3. Vide order dated 09.09.2024, first application filed by the applicant-appellant for suspension of execution of sentence was [2025:RJ-JP:42302] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1867/2025] dismissed as withdrawn by this Court. Now, this second application for suspension of execution of sentence has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that applicant-appellant has wrongly been convicted by the learned trial Court. Counsel submits that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in correct perspective. Counsel submits that more than one year has passed since rejection of the first application for suspension of execution of sentence but till date, appeal has not been placed for final hearing. Counsel submits that maximum sentence imposed by the learned trial Court is ten years and it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments that if fixed term sentence has been imposed, application for suspension of execution of sentence should be considered liberally. Counsel submits that if testimony of the victim is taken on its face value, then only allegation against the applicant-appellant is that he removed the pant of the victim and except this, no other allegation has been levelled by the victim against the applicant-appellant in her examination-in-chief. Counsel submits that it has clearly been stated by the victim in her cross-examination that no wrong was committed upon her by the applicant-appellant. Counsel submits that applicant has already suffered incarceration of about five years and looking to the large pendency of criminal appeals before this Court, there is no immediate prospect of this appeal being heard and disposed of in near future. [2025:RJ-JP:42302] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1867/2025] 5. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. He submits that victim is aged about four years and she has clearly stated that applicant-appellant locked the room and removed her pant. He further submits that victim/complainant has duly been informed about hearing of this application for suspension of execution of sentence. 6. Despite information, no one has put in appearance on behalf of victim/complainant. 7. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant as well as learned State Counsel and having regard to the facts and circumstances as available on the record including judgment passed by learned trial Court and further considering the period of incarceration suffered by the applicant- appellant which is almost five years and there is no immediate prospect of this appeal being heard and disposed of in near future, 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 applicant-appellant during pendency of the instant appeal. 8. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 430 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & Commission for Child Rights Protection Act, 2005, No.4, Alwar (Raj.) vide judgment dated 18.11.2022 in Sessions Case No.31/2021 (CIS No.44/2021) against the applicant-appellant Viresh Son Of Shripal shall [2025:RJ-JP:42302] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1867/2025] remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he execute 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 14.11.2025 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. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 9. 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 LALIT MOHAN /9