[2025:RJ-JP:50952] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. II Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2138/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2001/2021 Rajesh Kumar Meena Son Of Jainarayan Meena, Resident Of Kaled Police Station Pratapgarh District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In The Central Jail, Alwar). ----Accused-Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 17/12/2025 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 Sections 452, 376(3) of IPC read with Section 3/4 of POCSO Act vide judgment dated 09.09.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, No.4, Alwar (Raj.) in Sessions Case No.39/2019 and has been sentenced to maximum punishment of twenty years. [2025:RJ-JP:50952] (2 of 4) [SOSA-2138/2025] 3. The first application for suspension of execution of sentence of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.09.2024. Counsel submits that despite the lapse of one year, the appeal is not heard finally, 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. Counsel submits that there is no medical corroboration of allegation, despite the fact that the victim of this case was medically examined on very next day of the alleged incident and it was alleged by her that she was forcefully sexually abused by the appellant. The medical expert has categorically stated in examination that she did not find any sign of forceful sexual intercourse. Counsel further submits that appellant has suffered incarceration of about seven years and five months and his conduct in jail is also satisfactory, so also there is no criminal antecedents of the appellant. He contends 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 contends that appeal against the conviction is statutory right and same would be [2025:RJ-JP:50952] (3 of 4) [SOSA-2138/2025] 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. He 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 the fact that appellant has suffered incarceration of about seven years and five months, so also considering the fact that absence of criminal antecedent; satisfactory conduct in jail and there is no immediate prospect of hearing and disposal of the appeal in near future as well as looking to the large pendency 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 sentence 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 sentence passed by the learned learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, No.4, Alwar (Raj.) vide judgment dated 09.09.2021 in Sessions Case [2025:RJ-JP:50952] (4 of 4) [SOSA-2138/2025] No.39/2019 against the appellant-applicant Rajesh Kumar Meena Son Of Jainarayan Meena 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.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on 19.01.2026 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), 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/6