Suspension of sentence is warranted when a convict has served more than half of the sentence and the appeal process is expected to take time.

ORDER :

CRL.M.(BAIL) 28/2025 (for suspension of sentence)

1. The Appellant has been convicted in S.C. No. 7671/2016 arising from the FIR No. 3086/2015 under section 354, 354A (2) read with section 354A(1)(i)/354-B/ 376(2), 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [“IPC”] and Section 6 read with Section 5(n) and Section 10 read with Section 9(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at P.S. Mehrauli, New Delhi.

2. By judgment dated 22^nd March, 2024 passed by the ASJ (FTSC) (POCSO), South District, Saket Court, New Delhi for offences under Section 354, 354A(2) read with Section 354A(1)(i), 354B, 376(2), 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] and Section 6 read with Section 5(n) and Section 10 read with Section 9(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, [“POCSO”] and as per order on sentence dated 12^th September, 2024, the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for offence under section 10 read with Section 9 of the POCSO Act and is further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Furthermore, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for offence under Section 506 (Part II) of the IPC. All sentences were directed to run concurrently. Further, he was directed to pay fine of INR 5,000/- for the offence under Section 10 of POCSO and in default serve further imprisonment of three months; fine of INR 5000/- for the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and in default, to serve further imprisonment of 3 months; fine of INR 2000/- for the offence under Section 506 (Part II) of IPC and in default, to serve further imprisonment of two months.

3. Through this application, the Appellant seeks the suspension of his sentence till the pendency of his appeal.

4. The Court heard counsel for the parties. Ms. Arushi Anthwal, counsel for the Prosecutrix, as well as the prosecutrix, are present in person before this court. Ms Anthwal, on instructions from the prosecutrix, states that she has no objection with regards to the suspension of sentence and the Court can take an appropriate view in the matter. However, she emphasises that it must be ensured that the Appellant would not in any manner contact the prosecutrix.

5. In Sonadhar v. State of Chattisgarh, [2021 SCC OnLine SC 3182] and Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, [2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259] the Supreme Court has observed that in cases other than the ones concerning life sentences, broad parameter of 50% of actual sentence undergone can be the basis of granting bail.

6. In Saudan Singh the Supreme Court inter alia held as under:

“7. We may note that there may be even convicts in custody in cases other than life sentence cases and in those cases again the broad parameter of 50 per cent of the actual sentence undergone can be the basis for grant of bail.”

7. As per nominal roll, as on 5^th March, 2025, the Applicant has undergone sentence of 8 years 7 months and 17 days. He has earned a remission of 1 month 13 days. The unexpired portion of his sentence is 1 year 3 months. Thus, as on date the Applicant has served more than half of the sentence awarded. The jail conduct of the Applicant for last one year has been found to be satisfactory. The appeal is expected to take some time. If the Appellant’s sentence is not suspended, there is a possibility that he will serve the entire sentence before his appeal is heard, rendering the appeal process merely a formality.

8. Considering the aforenoted decisions of the Supreme Court and the fact that the Applicant has undergone more than half of the sentence awarded and since the hearing of the appeal is likely to take some time, the Court is inclined to suspend the sentence of the Applicant during the pendency of the present appeal.

9. Accordingly, the Appellant shall be released on bail, subject to him furnishing a bail bond in the sum of INR 25,000/- with one su