Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:40607) on 11 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:40607]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 564/2025
Suresh S/o Shri Basti Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of
Bawarla Ps Dangiyawas District Jodhpur At Prsent Behind
Rajasthan Hospital Mirasi Colony Banar Jodhpur (Presently
Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Geeta Mochi W/o Shri Balu Ram Mochi, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Gautam Nagar Kanroli Ps Kankroli Rajsamand
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Laxmi Devi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
11/09/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant as well as
learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on
record.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that the
appellant-applicant and prosecutrix were Facebook friends and
she, at her own volition, travelled from Rajsamand to Jodhpur in a
bus and thereafter stayed with the appellant-applicant and also
with his family. Post that, pursuant to the missing person report
lodged by her mother, she was traced and brought back to the
police station. She further submits that as per her own statement
before the Court as PW-1, she had admitted that she wants to
stay with the appellant-applicant and wanted to marry him. She
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 05:47:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40607] (2 of 4) [SOSA-564/2025]
further asserts that the FSL report has not supported the stand of
the prosecution, and even Smt. Geeta (PW-2), the mother of the
prosecutrix has turned hostile and has not implicated the present
appellant-applicant. She further submits that it is a case of
consent, though the age of the prosecutrix, on the date of
incident, was 17 years 3 months and 19 days, however, the
statement of the prosecutrix and ancillary fact clearly make out a
case of consent. She further states that the appellant-applicant is
behind bars since 10.01.2022 for almost a period of 3 years and 9
months. In these circumstances, she prays that the sentence
awarded to the appellant-applicant may be suspended and he may
be released on bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application
for suspension of sentence and submits that the statement of the
prosecutrix by itself is sufficient to convict the appellant-applicant,
and considering the same as well as the DNA report, learned trial
Court has rightly convicted the appellant-applicant for the offences
in question. Therefore, the appellant-applicant is not entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of both
the sides and perused the record. Admittedly, from the statement
of the prosecutrix, it is clear that she, at her own volition travelled
from Rajsamand to Jodhpur in a bus, thereafter stayed with the
appellant-applicant and also with his family, and again travelled to
Ramdevra in a bus, wherein too, she did not raise any hue and cry
with regrd to her being abducted, or forced to travel, or any
pressure being asserted upon her by the appellant-applicant.
Furthermore, as per her own statement, she has stated that she
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 05:47:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40607] (3 of 4) [SOSA-564/2025]
wants to stay with the appellant-applicant and wants to marry
him. Furthermore, the mother of the prosecutrix has turned
hostile and has even refused to name the appellant-applicant, as
also, considering the fact that the appellant-applicant has
remained behind the bars for almost 3 years and 9 months and
considering the fact that chances of hearing of appeal in near
future are bleak, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for
suspending the sentence awarded to the accused appellant-
applicant.
5. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 415(2) of BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that
the sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of
Children from Offences Act, 2012, Rajsamand, vide judgment
dated 16.10.2024 in Session Case No.19/2022, (CIS No.19/2022)
against the appellant-applicant Suresh S/o Shri Basti Ram 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.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to
the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this
court on 13.10.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial
Court in the month of January of every year till the
appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of
residence, he/she/they will give in writing
his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as
well as to the counsel in the High Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),
they will give in writing their changed address to
the trial Court.
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 05:47:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40607] (4 of 4) [SOSA-564/2025]
6. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered
as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the
accused-applicant(s) was/were 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(s) does not appear before the trial
court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High
Court for cancellation of bail.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
72-Love/-
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 05:47:26 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
