O R D E R

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.

CRL.M.(BAIL) 1690/2019

1. An application has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 15.05.2019/17.05.2019 in FIR No.289/16 registered at PS: Khajuri Khas, Delhi under Section 377/506/34 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and acquitted of charge under Section 363/34 IPC.

The appellant has been further sentenced under Section 506 IPC to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- (in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 15 days); for the offence under section 6 POCSO Act to RI for a period of 10 years and fine of Rs.20,000/- (in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of 03 months) .

2. As per the Nominal Roll upto 05.07.2022, the petitioner has undergone sentence for a period of 03 years 05 months and 03 days and earned remission for 09 months and 10 days. The total unexpired portion of sentence is 05 years, 09 months and 17 days.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for suspension of sentence till disposal of appeal on the ground that petitioner has undergone sentence for a period of more than 04 years and 02 months including remission, apart from challenging the case on merits. It is also submitted that disposal of appeal is likely to take some time. Reliance is further placed upon Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421, Kashmira Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 291 and Angana and Another v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 3 SCC 767.

4. On the other hand, application is vehemently opposed by learned APP for the State and it is submitted that finding of conviction is strongly supported by evidence on record. It is also urged that appellant has not even completed half of the sentence to extend any benefit in terms of observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (CRL.) No.529/2021 titled as Sonadhar v. The State of Chhattisgarh. Reliance is further placed upon Preet Pal Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Crl. Appeal No.520 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Crl) No.2102 of 2019 decided on 14.08.2020; Mohd. Rafiq v. State NCT decided on 06.09.2007 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Dhingra; Ravi Kumar @ Sonu v. State, Crl. Appeal No.444/2010; alongwith Ashwani Dubey @ Chhanwa v. State, Crl. Appeal No.595/2010 both decided on 05.10.2010 by the High Court of Delhi and Gomti vs.

Thakurdas & Ors., Crl. Appeal No.555 of 2007 arising out of SLP (Crl.)

No.2062 of 2006 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 13.04.2007.

5. Briefly, the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner may be referred.

(i) In Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others v. State of Gujarat (supra), it was observed that “when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of course, if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is „life imprisonment‟ the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of a limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when a motion for expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously the appellate court must bestow special concern in the matter of suspending the sentence so as to make the appeal right, meaningful and effective. Of course, appellate courts can impose similar conditions when bail is granted.”

Considering the fact that in the aforesaid case, the court was not inclined to hear the appeal expeditiously, the sen