[2025:RJ-JP:25061] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 83/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.3253/2024 Moolchand S/o Shree Rampal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Khara Ka Chowk, Rajnota Police Station Pragpura District Jaipur (At Present Confined Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 07/07/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant - Moolchand S/o Shree Rampal in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 02.12.2024 in Sessions Case No.40/2020 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases), Jaipur whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC and 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act in alternate Section 376(2-N) of IPC and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated by complainant. He further submitted that the age of victim is 17.5 years on the basis of date of birth 20.04.2003 whereas the age of present appellant is 20 years. He [2025:RJ-JP:25061] (2 of 4) [SOSA-83/2025] further referred the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and exhbited as Ex.D1 and submitted that victim has not made any allegation about rape by appellant. He further referred the statement of father, brother and mother recorded by police under Section 161 CrP.C. and exhibited as Ex.D2 to D4 and submitted that in none of the statements, allegation of rape was made against appellant. He further referred the facts of the case and submitted that after recovery, victim has refused for medical but later her medical report was prepared and no doctor was examined to prove the report as doctor has expired. He also submitted that the evidence of victim clearly suggested that she has spent several days with appellant and not raised any alarm while moving in public place. He further submitted that victim was taken to police station by her parents and she was not recovered from company of appellant. He also submitted that victim has left her house due to family annoyance. He also referred the cross- examination of PW-19 Narendra Kumar (IO) and submitted that there was affair between victim and appellant and appellant was forced by victim to accompany her. He also submitted that appellant was on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. 5. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. On the basis of report, Ex.P-8 filed by PW-2 father of victim about elopement of his minor daughter on enticement by [2025:RJ-JP:25061] (3 of 4) [SOSA-83/2025] appellant, FIR No. 160/2020 was registered at P.S. Kotputli, Dist. Jaipur. After recovery of victim, her statements were recorded and charge-sheet was filed against appellant. After framing charge, prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but he has not submitted any defence evidence though exhibited 4 documents in defence. Learned trial court has convicted appellant under Sections 363, 366 IPC and 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act in alternate Section 376(2-N) of IPC. 7. The appellant was released on bail in pursuant to order dated 04.11.2020 in bail application No.12738/2020 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The age of victim, determined by the trial court on the basis of 20.04.2003 proved by PW-3 Bheru Singh and victim was above 17 years but less than 18 years. We have considered statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Also considered statement of victim recorded as PW-1, particularly her cross-examination. Also considered FSL and DNA report along with cross-examination of IO. 8. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case to enlarge appellant on bail. 9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellant accused- Moolchand S/o Shree Rampal 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 [2025:RJ-JP:25061] (4 of 4) [SOSA-83/2025] satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 29.10.2025 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. After release on bail, he will not contact or communicate victim or her family members in any manner. 3. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 4. 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. 5. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), he will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 6. In case of breach of any of condition, the SOS order may be recalled by the trial court. 10. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 11. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /19