Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gagandeep Singh Alias Gagan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:47171) on 3 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:47171]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc II Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 1314/2025
Gagandeep Singh Alias Gagan Singh S/o Shri Mander Singh,
Aged About 22 Years, R/o Chak 01 Skm (B), Tehsil Gharsana,
Police Station Rawla, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
(Petitioner Lodged At District Jail Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Kumari Geetu D/o Late Darshan Singh, Through Her
Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Veero W/o Late Darshan
Singh R/o Village Narwana, Police Station Sadar Bathinda.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagat Dadhich
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Chandawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
03/11/2025
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been
moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment dated
11.04.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge of POCSO Act,
Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.100/2019 whereby he was
convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment 20
years along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 5(m)/6 of
POCSO Act and lesser punishment for the other offences under
Sections 363 and 366 of IPC.
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
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 02:22:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47171] (2 of 4) [SOSA-1314/2025]
conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be
appreciated again by this court being the first appellate Court. It is
further contended that 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. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant and the
learned counsel for the State. None appeared for the
complainant or victim despite information supplied to them by the
learned Public Prosecutor. I have gone through the record of the
case.
5. The second application for suspension is majorly based upon
the ground of languishing the appellant in jail for last around
seven years and of having no hope of hearing of the appeal in a
near future due to voluminous pendency before this Court. The
appellant was 19-year-old when apprehended and booked in this
case. The plea of deficit nature of evidence with regard to age of
the victim has a substance because the document produced by the
prosecution belongs to class III of the victim and a question arises
why the best evidence was not produced despite availability. The
admission form of the school first attended has deliberately been
withheld by the prosecution. The submission of the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant that as per Section 114(g) of
the Indian Evidence Act, an adverse inference should be drawn
that if the evidence of primary school might have produced, the
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 02:22:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47171] (3 of 4) [SOSA-1314/2025]
same would go against the interest of the prosecution. The
discrepancies and contradictions appearing in the statement of the
victim have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and thus, it is strongly argued that the appellant has a
strong arguable case in his favour and has every hope of success
in appeal but the hearing of the same is not a seeming fate in a
near future.
6. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the
case, 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 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentence passed by learned trial court, the details of which are
provided in the first 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 03.12.2025 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.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 02:22:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47171] (4 of 4) [SOSA-1314/2025]
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
47-divya/-
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 02:22:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
