IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal consideration for suspension of sentence pending appeal, the exercise of judicious discretion in granting bail and suspending sentences, and the need to ensure the meaningful and effective right of appeal.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. praying to suspend the operation of the judgment dated 18.03.2019 and the order of sentence dated 30.03.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Imphal East in Special Trial (POCSO) Case No.12 of 2015 and to release the petitioner on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The petitioner, who has been arrayed as an accused in Special Trial (POCSO) Case No.12 of 2015 on the file of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Imphal East, was convicted under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 by the judgment dated 18.03.2019 and fixed the matter on 30.03.2019 for sentence hearing. On 30.03.2019, the petitioner was produced before the learned Special Judge, Imphal East and after hearing the petitioner and his counsel, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 4 of POCSO Act and in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. The learned Special Judge also ordered that the said fine amount if deposited, the same shall be given to the victim girl as compensation. That apart, the learned Special Judge also recommended for provision of victim compensation to the tune of Rs.5.00 lakh under Section 357A of Cr.P.C. to the victim. The learned Special Judge also ordered the period which has already undergone by the petitioner in the judicial custody during the period of investigation as well as during the trial, if any, shall be set-off from the sentence awarded.

3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner, the petitioner has filed Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2021 before this Court. Along with the appeal, the petitioner has filed petition seeking to suspend the sentence stating that he has a very good case on merits and is likely to succeed in the appeal filed by him.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was on bail during trial and he had fully co-operated in the trial by putting his personal appearance in almost all the hearing dates fixed by the trial Court and he never violated any terms and conditions of his releasing on bail during the whole proceedings of the trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there are lot of infirmities in the impugned judgment and that the petitioner has got good case on merits to succeed in the appeal. He would submit that the petitioner is in jail for more than three years after conviction and spending the time in the jail, there was no criminal record of the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel then submitted that the petitioner was a mason by profession and he is a minor at the time of alleged offence and he is still bachelor and he has to look after his father. He would submit that the release of the petitioner on bail by suspending the sentence shall not cause any inconvenience or prejudice to the prosecution.

6. The learned counsel next submitted that the appeal would not be taken up for hearing in the near future and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to suspension of sentence pending appeal and that the petitioner undertakes to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that detention of the petitioner during pendency of the appeal is a severe punishment to all his family members and thus prays for suspension of sentence pending appeal.

8. Per contra, the learned Government counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to suspension of sentence in view of the findings recorded by the trial Court. He would submit that there is every possibility of the petitioner absconding in case he is released on bail by suspending the sentence. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

9. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is no