Research › Search › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2026 DAILYLAW 748 (SC)

Dinesh v. State of Haryana

2026-06-22

B V Nagarathna, Joymalya Bagchi

body2026
ORDER Leave granted. 2. This appeal challenges the order dated 22.04.2026 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-43906 of 2025 in CRA-S-402 of 2023 (O&M), whereby the appellant’s application for suspension of sentence was dismissed. 3. The appellant faced trial in connection with FIR No. 63 dated 21.05.2019 at Women Police Station Central, Sector 16 Faridabad. By judgment dated 26.07.2022, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Faridabad (‘Trial Court’) convicted the appellant under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). By order of sentence dated 27.07.2022, the appellant was sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.30,000/- for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence under Section 506 of the IPC. 4. The appellant, being aggrieved by the order of conviction passed by the trial court, filed CRA-S-402 of 2023 (O&M) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and the same is pending. The appellant also preferred CRM-43906 of 2025 for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal. 5. The High Court, by the impugned order dated 22.04.2026, dismissed the application for suspension of sentence. Hence, the present criminal appeal. 6. By order dated 29.05.2026, this Court issued notice in the instant matter. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Special Court convicted the appellant under Section 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and convicted him to ten years imprisonment plus fine. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred criminal appeal before the High Court, which is pending adjudication. In the meanwhile, he has completed nearly seven years eleven months and six days of incarcertation as of today with remission. The appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future as it is of the year 2023. In the circumstances, this court may set aside the impugned order and grant the relief of suspension of sentence subject to the conditions to be imposed. 9. The appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future as it is of the year 2023. In the circumstances, this court may set aside the impugned order and grant the relief of suspension of sentence subject to the conditions to be imposed. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State with reference to his counter-affidavit contended that the appellant is none other than the uncle of the victim and hence, the appeal may be simply dismissed having regard to the seriousness of the crime that he has committed on the minor child. 10. Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for suspension of sentence is made out. We therefore direct as follows: “The petitioner shall be produced before the concerned Trial Court as early as possible and the Trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to such conditions as it may deem appropriate to impose to ensure his presence in the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 63 mentioned above.” 11. The appellant shall appear before the High Court as and when directed to do so. 12. It is directed that the appellant shall extend complete cooperation in the hearing of the appeal before the High Court. The appellant shall not misuse his liberty in any manner. 13. Any infraction of the conditions may entail cancellation of the suspension of sentence granted to the appellant. 14. With these observations, the criminal appeal is allowed.