[2026:RJ-JP:7804] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 35/2026 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.821/2022 Sonu Son Of Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Jheel Ki Dhani Jageer Bandikui, Police Station Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.) (Presently The Accused-Appellant Is Confined In District Jail, Dausa) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Ms. Chanchal, Mr. Herambh Sarawwat and Mr. Utkarsh Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditaya Sharma for Mr. Anurag Kalawatiya Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 18/02/2026 1. The 2nd application for suspension of sentence is preferred by Sonu S/o Shri Banwari Lal in pending appeal aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 13.04.2022 in Sessions Case No.113/2018 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases), Dausa whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 2(i), 506 IPC and 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 [2026:RJ-JP:7804] (2 of 6) [SOSA-35/2026] 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 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 appellant is already undergone more than 5 months and 4 months out of maximum awarded sentence of 10 years. He also referred bail order dated 26.03.2019 in bail application No.3423/2019 and submitted that the appellant was granted bail by a Coordinate Bench during trial. He also submitted that till the time, the appeal has not been considered on merits. He further submitted that the appellant is a young person having age of 24 years. He also submitted that the appellant has strong case to succeed. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. perused the material placed on record. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 6. First SOS application was dismissed by this Court on 17.10.2023, wherein we have specifically observed as under:- Aggrieved from impugned order, complainant has also preferred a revision petition for enhancing the sentence and fine amount. The record further indicated that appellant was released on bail in pursuant order dated 26.03.2019 in bail application No. 3423/2019 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. FIR was registered on Ex.P-5 report [2026:RJ-JP:7804] (3 of 6) [SOSA-35/2026] submitted by PW-4 (father of victim) wherein it was mentioned that his daughter was sad on 16.10.2017 but when asked she did not disclosed anything but next day when his wife asked then she cried and narrated the incident. Further she told her mother that on previous occasions, same act was committed by appellant. In Ex.P-4 it was further mentioned that the victim was terrified. Initially victim refused for medical but she had given some samples. Later on, she was fully examined on 24.10.2017. As per Ex.P-3 human semen was detected in Packet Mark “A and B” (underwear of victim) but not on any other sample. In statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-6), victim further named present appellant for committing rape with her. Victim was examined as PW-2 before the trial court wherein also she corroborated the prosecution story in cross-examination she remained firm but admitted certain suggestions. The date of birth of victim was claimed and proved as 04.08.2004 from the record. No other suggestion is available on record to consider that this date of birth was wrong. The learned trial court relying upon the prosecution evidence concluded that victim was minor on date of incident which means the age of victim was less than 14 years. There was delay of two days in lodging the report to the police but considering terrifying effect as narrated in FIR and also in evidence it can be considered for now that learned trial court has considered the grounds of delay. Even if there are other reasons which can be considered at final stage and not now. The fact that appellant and father of victim were known to each other and [2026:RJ-JP:7804] (4 of 6) [SOSA-35/2026] they indulge in manufacturing of corrugated boxes and further in some activity of betting. There is one N.I. Act case which was referred but same was instituted only after present incident. Having considered animosity prior to the incident we can also consider the fact that appellant and father of victim were known to each other because of certain joint business activities and as a result of any difference they set apart from each other but the version of victim remained firm from FIR to statement in the Court. Therefore, looking her statement we can definitely say that this is a case wherein victim was less than 14 years of age and she was subjected to sexual assault by present appellant who was aware about the outcome of the entire act. Ex.P-22 FSL/DNA report detected mixed DNA profile from underwears of victim and male DNA profile of appellant and victim DNA profile are accounted in mix DNA profiles obtained from strains detected on underwears of victim. 7. The maximum sentence awarded to present appellant is rigorous imprisonment of 10 years. The appellant was released on bail during trial vide order dated 26.03.2019. The period of custody is more than 5 years and 3 months. The appeal has not been considered so far, therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances particularly, the period of incarceration 50% already undergone by the appellant, it is appropriate to allow SOS application. 8. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case to enlarge appellant on bail. [2026:RJ-JP:7804] (5 of 6) [SOSA-35/2026] 9. 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-Sonu S/o Shri Banwari Lal is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would executes a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/-with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on 04.05.2026 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. 5. In case, the applicant has violated any condition, then the order of SOS shall be recalled and cancelled. 10. Misc. Application stands disposed of. [2026:RJ-JP:7804] (6 of 6) [SOSA-35/2026] 11. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /58