[2025:RJ-JP:42734] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 3rd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 952/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 421/2020 1. Dalveer S/o Jagan, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Dhahina P.s. Roopwas District Bharatpur (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Sewar Bharatpur) 2. Mukut S/o Kanhaiya, Resident Of Village Dhahina P.s. Roopwas District Bharatpur (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Sewar Bharatpur) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Savita Nathawat Mr. Amar Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. J.P. Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Order 16/10/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been moved on behalf of the applicants in the matter of judgment dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, POCSO Act Cases, No.2, Bharatpur, in Sessions Case No.126/2018 whereby each of them convicted under Section 376(D) of the IPC and sentenced to suffer twenty years’ RI along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default to further undergo one year’s SI. [2025:RJ-JP:42734] (2 of 5) [SOSA-952/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellants submit that their first application for suspension of sentence was rejected by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 06.12.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application Nos. 2135/2024 and 1291/2023. Since then, a considerable period has elapsed, yet the appeal could not be listed for final hearing due to paucity of time and heavy pendency of cases. It is urged that the applicant-appellants have remained in custody for over 8 years and 6 months and there appears to be no likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future. 2.1. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellants as the prosecution case suffers from serious contradictions, inconsistencies, and infirmities that go to the root of the matter. The evidence on record, including the FIR, charge-sheet, and oral testimonies, lacks coherence and corroboration. Key prosecution witnesses, including P.W.1 and P.W.3, have not supported the prosecution version and were declared hostile, rendering the remaining evidence unreliable and insufficient to sustain the conviction. The findings of the Trial Court are thus perverse and contrary to the weight of evidence, having been recorded without due consideration of material contradictions, omissions, and the appellants statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Lastly learned counsel argued that in these circumstances, as the appeal raises substantial and arguable grounds and its final hearing is likely to take considerable time, it is humbly prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellants be suspended during the pendency of the appeal and that they be released on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:42734] (3 of 5) [SOSA-952/2025] 3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused- applicants for releasing the appellants on application for suspension of sentence. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Upon a tentative appraisal of the material placed on record and the submissions advanced, this Court finds that the prosecution case appears to be marred by serious contradictions, inconsistencies, and infirmities that strike at the very substratum of the matter. The evidentiary foundation, comprising the FIR, charge-sheet, and oral testimonies, does not reveal the degree of coherence or corroboration necessary to inspire judicial confidence. Notably, key prosecution witnesses, including P.W.1 and P.W.3, have resiled from their earlier statements and were declared hostile, thereby rendering the remaining evidence fragile and insufficient to sustain the conviction on a firm footing. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court also seem to suffer from a manifest misappreciation of the evidence, having been rendered without proper consideration of material contradictions, omissions, and the appellant’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 5.1. It further emerges that the prosecution case rests predominantly upon the statement of the alleged victim, in which certain material discrepancies have been pointed out by the defence. At this stage, such inconsistencies appear to cast a reasonable doubt on the credibility of the said testimony. If these aspects are evaluated in their totality at the time of final [2025:RJ-JP:42734] (4 of 5) [SOSA-952/2025] adjudication, there exists a plausible likelihood that the appeal may succeed. The appellants, having already undergone incarceration for more than eight and a half years, would otherwise stand to suffer irreparable prejudice in the event the conviction is ultimately set aside. 5.2. In this context, it is also pertinent to note that in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2021) 10 SCC 773, as well as in several other pronouncements, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has unequivocally held that prolonged and indefinite incarceration pending trial or appeal constitutes a valid ground for grant of regular bail or suspension of sentence. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the fact that there exists a serious discrepancy regarding statement of the victim, coupled with the circumstance that the appellants have already undergone more than eight years and six months of incarceration and the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future, this Court while refraining from making any conclusive observations on the merits or the alleged defects in the prosecution case, as such comments may prejudice the final hearing; is of the considered opinion that the case presents a fit instance for suspension of sentence awarded to the accused-appellants during the pendency of the appeal. 7. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by learned trial court, the details of which are provided in the first para of this order, against the appellant- applicants named above shall remain suspended till final disposal [2025:RJ-JP:42734] (5 of 5) [SOSA-952/2025] of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 their appearance in this court on 18.11.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicants changes the place of residence, they will give in writing their 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. 8. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicants 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. (FARJAND ALI),J Mamta/25