[2026:RJ-JP:33352] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 779/2026 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1973/2022 CNR: RJHC020375102026 | URN: SOSA / 1511U / 2026 Abhishek Bharti S/o Dharampal, Choki Goverdanpura, P.s. Kotputli, District Jaipur, Raj. (At Present, The Accused/appellant Is Confined In Central Jail, Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Paliwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 19/08/2026 1. The second application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant - Abhishek Bharti S/o Dharampal in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 26.08.2022 in Sessions Case No.46/2020 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) No.2, Alwar whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 363, 366A, 376(3) of IPC, 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that without observing principle of law learned trial court has arrived at a conclusion of conviction. [2026:RJ-JP:33352] (2 of 5) [SOSA-779/2026] He further submitted that learned trial court has overlooked material contradictions and discrepancies, which goes to root of the matter. He further submitted that the entire case of prosecution rests on testimony of interested witness and no independent witness was examined to corroborate the story of prosecution. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the first SOS application of appellant was dismissed in absence of counsel for appellant on 15.10.2024, and now appellant has remained in custody for a period of eight years seven months. He also submits that, considering the period of custody, the appellant is entitled for bail. He also submits that appellant has a good case to succeed in appeal, but appeal has not been considered on merits. 4. Learned counsel has further submitted that the victim herself has eloped from her home, and the same is evident from her statement as PW1. He further referred to her cross- examination and submitted that victim has travelled in public transport, which is sufficient to show that victim has not called for any help from public. He also submitted that conduct of victim clearly indicates that she was a consenting party to the incident. He also referred material and submitted that the statement of victim is not trustworthy and, on the basis of said statement, appellant cannot be convicted. He also referred statement of other witnesses and submitted that there is no evidence against appellant to show criminality in the incident. At last, he submitted that [2026:RJ-JP:33352] (3 of 5) [SOSA-779/2026] age of appellant was 19 years on date of incident and appellant and victim both were young. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. 6. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 7. On the basis of report lodged by PW2, father of victim, on 13.11.2018 about elopement of his daughter since afternoon, FIR No. 915/2018 was registered at P.S. Behror under Sections 363 and 366A IPC. During investigation, victim was recovered on 19.11.2018 and her statement under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were recorded. The appellant was arrested on 20.11.2018, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against appellant. After framing charge, prosecution has examined twelve witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. The statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 313 CrPC and he has not submitted any defence evidence. The appellant was convicted under Sections 366A, 363, 376(2)(n), 376(3) IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act. The trial court has awarded maximum sentence of 20 years. The custody certificate indicates that appellant is in custody since his arrest and the period of custody is more than 8 years 7 months. The first SOS application of appellant was dismissed by this Court in absence of counsel for appellant, wherein we have specifically observed as under: [2026:RJ-JP:33352] (4 of 5) [SOSA-779/2026] 5. A perusal of the record reflects that the age of the victim was less than sixteen years on the date of incident. Record also reveals that the prosecution was able to establish the date of birth of victim as 29.03.2004 and also semen was found on underwear of victim. The victim has supported the case of prosecution. A perusal of statement of PW-1 reflects that she was not only enticed but also forced to elope from her home. The victim has also alleged that she took cash and jewellery from parents house and the same was sold at the insistence of the present appellant. 6. A perusal of statement of victim recorded as PW-1 clearly reflects that she had corroborated the allegation against the appellant. The testimony was further supported by FSL report. 8. We have considered statement of PW1, victim, in particular the details provided by her. There is no doubt about fact that victim and appellant have travelled in public place and they have stayed at various places, but the age of victim is less than 16 years, which is evident from the document submitted on record. The material also indicates that appellant has forced victim to procure jewellery, which were sold as appellant needed money to travel from one place to another. 9. Considering the age of victim and also the fact that sentence is still not 50%, the appellant is not entitled to be released [2026:RJ-JP:33352] (5 of 5) [SOSA-779/2026] on bail on any of the grounds as mentioned by learned counsel for appellant. 10. Accordingly, second SOS application preferred by appellant Abhishek Bharti is hereby dismissed. Misc. application stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 19/PREETI VALECHA