[2025:RJ-JP:17494] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1875/2024 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1257/2024 Monu Son Of Shri Jagdish, Resident Of Sitapur, Police Station, Nai Mandi, Hindaun City, District Karauli(Rajasthan). (Presently The Accused-Appellant Is Confined In Central Jail,sewar Bharatpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Ms. Chanchal and Mr. Utkarsh Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP Mr. Hari Krishna Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 24/04/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant-Monu Son Of Shri Jagdish aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 06.06.2024 in Sessions Case No.73/2023 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases), Karauli whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 3/4(1) and 16/17 of POCSO Act and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that this is a false and fabricated case and [2025:RJ-JP:17494] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1875/2024] appellant was framed by complainant party. He further referred the FIR Ex.P-3 and submitted that no allegation of rape was mad upon appellant rather only attempt to commit rape was made against him. He also referred the statement of Ex.D3 and D4 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and submitted that after recording FIR the statement of both the victims were recorded by police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein also they have not alleged any rape against appellant. He further submitted that initially the victim has denied about medical examination but after recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein the victim has made certain improvements and for the first time introduced allegation of rape and given consent for medical examination and after medical examination the case was framed against the appellant. He also referred the statement of doctor and submitted that no injuries were found on persona of victim and even the FSL report was negative. He further referred the statement of victim recorded before the trial court and also another victim recorded before the court below has submitted that both the them have made contradictory statement in their cross-examination. He further referred the bail order dated 18.03.2024 passed by a CO- ordinate Bench of this Court and submitted that both the accused Mohit and Monu were released on bail during pendency of sessions case. At last, he referred the order dated 10.10.2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in respect of another accused Mohit and submitted that the case of petitioner is not different from the case of Mohit and on identical facts he is entitled for bail. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. He submitted [2025:RJ-JP:17494] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1875/2024] custody certificate and same is taken on record. Learned counsel for complainant while referring the difference of fact has submitted that in the instant case, the age of victim is less than 16 years and she has made specific allegation against the appellant whereas in case of Mohit the age of victim was between 16-18 years. He further referred para No.39 of judgment of trial court and submitted that the trial court has considered the allegations made in Ex.P-3 and Ex.D-3 & Ex.D-4, the statement recorded under Sections 161, 164 Cr.P.C. and also before the trial court and drawn a conclusion that the testimony of victim inspires confidence and same is sufficient to believed that whatever she is stating before the court as prosecution witness is true. At last, he submitted that this is grave and serious case therefore the appellant is not entitled for bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of report Ex.P-3 submitted by brother of one of the victim on 31.07.2023, FIR NO.351/2023 was registered at P.S. Hindaun, District – Karauli and after investigation police has filed charge-sheet against Mohit under Sections 341, 323, 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4, 16/17 of POCSO Act and Monu under Sections 341, 323, 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and 3/4, 16/17 of POCSO Act. After framing the charge, prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they opted not to submit any defence evidence. The defence has exhibited 4 documents. Both the appellants were convicted by trial court. Appellant Monu was convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) [2025:RJ-JP:17494] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1875/2024] IPC and 3/4(2) and 16/17 of POCSO Act. The maximum sentence awarded to appellant is 20 years. 6. The appellant was released on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court during trial in pursuant to order ated 18.03.2024 in bail application No.1116/2024 passed by a Co-Ordinate bench of this Court along with another accused Mohit. Another Co-ordinate Bench while considering SOS of Mohit on 10.10.2024 has allowed SOS application No.1152/2024 and granted bail to Mohit till disposal of instant appeal. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in order dated 18.03.2024 has considered both the cases of identical nature but SOS application of Mohit was allowed on 10.10.2024, whereas instant application for Monu was filed on 15.10.2024 though both of them have filed a common appeal before this Court. 7. We have gone through the first information report registered by brother of victim exhibited as Ex.P-3 and also the statements of victims recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after registration of FIR and exhibited as Ex.D3 and D4, alongwith the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. We have considered all circumstances which were referred before this Court during course of arguments. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case but looking to almost identical nature of the cases, it is appropriate to allow SOS application of present appellant-accused Monu. 8. 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-Monu Son Of Shri [2025:RJ-JP:17494] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1875/2024] Jagdish 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 02.08.2025 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 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),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 9. Misc. Application stands disposed of. 10. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /19