[2026:RJ-JP:6089] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 133/2026 in S.B. Criminal appeal No.3037/2023 Sonu Meena Alias Bodya S/o Lala Ram Meena, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Ugaawas, Tan Paatan, P.s. Tunga District Jaipur. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anushree Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Poonam Mishra Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 09/02/2026 1. Instant 2nd SOS application is preferred by applicant- accused-Sonu Meena Alias Bodya in pending criminal appeal admitted on 29.07.2024 and filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.04.2022 in Sessions Case No.41/2019 for offence under Sections 363, 366, 344 IPC and Section 376(3) IPC alternatively 5/6 POCSO Act by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, Cases), Dausa. 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. He further submitted that learned trial court has overlooked material contradictions and discrepancies, which goes to root [2026:RJ-JP:6089] (2 of 4) [SOSA-133/2026] of the matter. She 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 appellant has already undergone more than 6 years 4 months against awarded sentence of 20 years. She further submits that in identical matter after dismissal of SOS application by this Hon’ble Court on 23.04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to accused Sajid in SLP (criminal) No.12714/2025. She also submitted that there is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He further submitted that complainant has already been informed about filing of SOS application. Learned counsel for complainant has opposed the SOS application on the ground that the age of victim is less than 16 years. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. The first SOS application of appellant was dismissed by this Court on 23.09.2024 wherein we have considered the merits of the case and while dismissing the SOS application, observed as under: “5. On basis of report dated 15.02.2019 for elopement of minor daughter of complainant FIR No.109/2019 was registered at P.S. Kotwali, District Dausa. The victim was recovered on 30.03.2019 and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was [2026:RJ-JP:6089] (3 of 4) [SOSA-133/2026] recorded and exhibited as Ex.P2. After medical report Ex.P4 was prepared by PW14-Doctor Sarika Gothwal. The applicant-accused was arrested on 01.04.2019, who faced trial and was found guilty by the Trial Court for offence under Sections 363, 366, 344, and 376(3) IPC alternatively Section 5/6 POCSO Act. A perusal of referred material indicate that PW2 was examined by prosecution to prove date of birth of victim. According to Ex.P11 to P13, the date of birth of victim was 08.08.2004. There is no other material to doubt testimony of PW2 or the certificates produced by PW2 in support of date of birth of victim. The impact of non-production of record relating to first school attended by victim can be considered only at the time of final adjudication. 6. We have gone through the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well. The victim has levelled allegation of rape against the accused. Moreover, the age of victim is less than 16 years, and the issue of consent from the conduct of victim cannot be considered by this Court. The applicant-accused is in custody from date of his arrest but the total sentence awarded to him is 20 years.” 7. The appellant has undergone more than 6 years 4 months and 15 days against awarded sentence of 20 years. The age of victim is less than 16 years but in case of Sajid (Criminal Appeal No.370/2023), filed against judgment of conviction dated 02.02.2023 in sessions case No.11/2021, the age of victim was more than 16 years though one of the argument of the accused is that the victim was adult on date of incident. Herein this case, while dismissing the SOS application, we have observed that the age of victim is less [2026:RJ-JP:6089] (4 of 4) [SOSA-133/2026] than 16years and accused was sentenced to undergo 20 years of imprisonment. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to Sajid in SLP(Criminal) No.12714/2025 vide order dated 11.11.2025 only on the ground that appeal has not been listed for hearing and it will take sufficient time before being heard. 9. Herein this case, the age of victim is less than 16 years and the petitioner Sonu Meena was not allowed bail even during pendency of sessions case, therefore considering the gravity of the offence, petitioner is not entitled for bail on the basis of order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sajid (supra). 10. Accordingly, SOS application preferred by Sonu Meena is hereby dismissed. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. 11. If the counsel for petitioner desires, the criminal appeal can be listed on Saturday, for disposal as Government counsels are already available. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /06