[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Sikkim High Court
Sandeep Gajmer @ Sandeep Gazmer vs State Of Sikkim on 3 December, 2025
Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai
Bench: Meenakshi M. Rai, Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIVISION BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.A. No.04 of 2025 in Crl.A. No.30 of 2024
Appellant/Petitioner : Sandeep Gajmer @ Sandeep Gazmer
versus
Respondent : State of Sikkim
Application under Section 430(1) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. N. Rai, Senior Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) with Ms. Tara Devi
Chettri, Advocate for the Petitioner/Appellant.
Mr. Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia, Public Prosecutor with Mr. Yadev Sharma,
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-Respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing : 01-12-2025
Order reserved : 01-12-2025
Order pronounced & uploaded : 03-12-2025
ORDER
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. The Petitioner/Convict seeks suspension of the sentence
imposed on him vide the impugned Judgment of conviction, dated
21-08-2024 and Order on Sentence, dated 22-08-2024, of the Court
of the Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), Gangtok, Sikkim
and enlargement on bail.
2. It is submitted by Learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner that, the Petitioner was convicted under Section 376(1) of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a term of ten years and to pay a fine of ₹ 5,000/-
(Rupees five thousand) only, with a default stipulation.
3. That, the Petitioner in fact has not committed the offence
for which he was convicted and the alleged victim was found in a
shed/kiosk in an unconscious state after which the allegation of rape
Sandeep Gajmer @ Sandeep Gazmer vs. State of Sikkim
emerged. She had been missing from her home for more than
twenty-four hours, in the said circumstance, the allegation of rape
against the Petitioner is erroneous. The medical evidence also failed
to substantiate this allegation against him. That apart, he is the only
son who is a caregiver to his aged parents who are both sickly, his
mother having fractured her shoulder in the month of July, 2024,
while his father has metal implants in his hip, thigh and calf after
suffering injuries in an accident. Both his parents are therefore
unable to fend for themselves. His wife suffers from Asthma and
anxiety disorder since the year 2022 and is on medication for the said
illnesses. He also has a minor son studying in Class V at Ranipool.
Since the Petitioner is the only care giver for his entire family and the
only earning member, his family is being subjected to trauma. That,
should the Petitioner be enlarged on bail he will be able to assist his
family. It was urged that his good conduct be taken into
consideration as he was on bail during the entire trial before the
Learned Trial Court and did not abscond. He is willing to abide by all
terms and conditions imposed by this Court if enlarged on bail.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor objects to the
petition for bail on grounds that there is no change in the
circumstances of the Petitioner since the last Order of this Court
dated 04-12-2024 passed in I.A. No.02 of 2024 in Crl.A. No.30 of
2024 (Sandeep Gajmer @ Sandeep Gazmer vs. State of Sikkim)
wherein his bail petition along with prayer for suspension of sentence
was denied. Relying on the decision in Preet Pal Singh vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Another the argument advanced was that, the
Petitioner has already been convicted for the offence of rape. There
is a difference between seeking bail during the course of trial and
(2020) 8 SCC 645
Sandeep Gajmer @ Sandeep Gazmer vs. State of Sikkim
post-conviction bail, as in the latter there can be no presumption of
innocence. It was reiterated that the principle of bail being the rule
and jail an exception is not attracted after the conviction was ordered
by the Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence before it.
5. We have heard at length the competing submissions
advanced by Learned Counsel for the parties. We have also given
due consideration to the entirety of the facts and circumstances
placed before us by Learned Counsel for the parties.
6. It is to be noticed that there are no changes in the
circumstances of the Petitioner/Convict as the grounds raised by him
in the instant petition, i.e., I.A. No.04 of 2025 in Crl.A. No.30 of
2024, are the exact same grounds raised in I.A. No.02 of 2024
(supra). His mother having suffered an injury in July, 2024 cannot
be a ground for enlargement on bail and the ailments of his father
and wife are also not grounds for the bail of the Petitioner. Although
he claims to be the only breadwinner in his family it is apparent that
since his incarceration his household comprising of his parents, wife
and minor son, are still functional. It is also to be observed that the
prayer for suspension of sentence and enlargement of bail is post the
Judgment of conviction and Order on Sentence by the Trial Court
which had given due consideration to the evidence placed before it
and concluded that he was guilty of the offences of rape.
7. In light of the foregoing discussions, we are not inclined
to consider the prayers advanced by Learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner and consequently reject I.A. No.04 of 2025.
8. I.A. No.04 of 2025 stands disposed of accordingly.
Sandeep Gajmer @ Sandeep Gazmer vs. State of Sikkim
9. We clarify that the observations made hereinabove are
only for the purposes of the instant bail petition and shall in no
manner be construed as findings on the merits of the Appeal.
10. A copy of this Order be forwarded to the Learned Trial
Court for information.
11. Copy of this Order also be made over to the Petitioner
through the Jail Superintendent, Central Prison, Rongyek and to the
Jail Authoirty at the Central Prison, Rongyek, for information.
( Bhaskar Raj Pradhan ) ( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge Judge
03-12-2025 03-12-2025
Approved for reporting : Yes
ds
