Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shyam Sunder @ Sunder vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25781) on 26 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:25781] (1 of 4) [SOSA-710/2025]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 710/2025
Shyam Sunder @ Sunder S/o Shri Mani Ram, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Village Lakhuwali, P.s. Pilibanga District
Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged In District Jail,
Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ram Swaroop Father/o Sultan Ram, R/o Kishanpura
Dikhnada P.s. Hanumangarh Town District Hanumangarh
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendera Bishnoi, AGA
Mr. J.K. Haniya
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
26/05/2025
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence under
Section 430 of the BNSS has been moved on behalf of the
appellant-applicant in the matter of judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 16.04.2022 passed by the learned Special
Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case
No.16/2019 whereby he was convicted for the offences under
Sections 363, 366 of the IPC and Section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act
and has been awarded maximum sentence of rigorous
imprisonment of 20 years for the offence under Section 5(L)/6 of
the POCSO Act and lesser sentences for the other offenes
alongwith fine and default sentence.
[2025:RJ-JD:25781] (2 of 4) [SOSA-710/2025]
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal and
factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous
conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be
appreciated again by this court being the first appellate Court. The
appellant has strong arguable case in his favour. He has remain
incarcerated for a period of 6 years and 7 months, but hearing of
the appeal is likely to take long time, therefore, the application for
suspension of sentence may be granted.
3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-
applicant for releasing the appellant on application for suspension
of sentence.
4. As per the report received by the learned Public Prosecutor,
the victim/complainant has been intimated regarding hearing of
the bail plea. Learned counsel Mr. J.K. Haniya has put in
appearance on behalf of the victim and has strongly opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. A perusal of the record is revealing that the appellant has
served a period of 6 years and 7 months out of the total sentence
of 20 years. The plea of the defence is that the nature of
relationship between the parties was consensual. As far as the
question of age of the victim is concerned, I have minutely gone
through the documents Ex.P/12 and Ex.P/13, which are the
documents relating to academic session of the victim, where she
had got admitted in Class VI. No document relating to the school
[2025:RJ-JD:25781] (3 of 4) [SOSA-710/2025]
first attended by the victim or birth has been tendered in
evidence. In light of the evidence, the finding regarding
determination of the age of the victim has to be re-assessed and
re-appreciated by this court. There is no likelihood of hearing of
the appeal on an early date. Thus, considering the submissions
advanced at bar, grounds raised in the memo of appeal and
looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, while
refraining from passing any comments on the niceties of the
matter and the defects of the prosecution as the same may put an
adverse effect on hearing of the appeal, this court is of the opinion
that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the
accused-appellant.
7. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 430 of the BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that
the sentence passed by learned trial court, details of which are
mentioned in opening para of this order, against the appellant-
applicant named above shall remain suspended till final disposal of
the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail provided he
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 his appearance in this court on 25.06.2025 and
whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the
conditions indicated below:-
1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month
of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
2. 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:25781] (4 of 4) [SOSA-710/2025]
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-applicant 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
124-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
