Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6907
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Arun Monga, J
RAM KISHAN ALIAS BABLU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) – Respondent
CRL.A. 499/2025|SC No. 209/2019|FIR No. 108/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. M. Ayub Khan
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State with Inspector Satbir Singh, P.S. Jaitpur, Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Adv. (DHCLSC), Ms. Vanshita Gupta, Adv.
The court emphasized balancing the merits of appeal with the personal circumstances of the appellant when considering bail, especially regarding familial hardship.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354, 354-D, and 324 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 8 and 12 - Conviction and sentencing under various sections of IPC and POCSO - The appellant was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines for multiple offences, including sexual assault and related charges. The appellant contested the conviction, claiming innocence and procedural errors in the trial court's decision. (Paras 2, 4 and 6)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Consideration of factors for bail during appeal - The applicant being the sole breadwinner with clean antecedents was granted bail considering the hardship caused to his family and the arguments indicating a substantial case for appeal. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under IPC and POCSO for various offences and sentenced to multiple terms of rigorous imprisonment and fines. The conviction followed the trial leading to impactful sentences affecting the appellant’s family.
Findings of Court:
The court recognized the appellant's familial obligations and granted him bail, emphasizing that continued custody would cause irreparable hardship. The case's merits were reserved for final hearing.
Issues: The main issues addressed included the validity of the conviction and the appellant's circumstances in supporting his bail application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the necessity of balancing the merits of appeal with personal circumstances, ultimately finding grounds for bail considering familial hardship.
Result: The application for bail is granted, allowing the appellant to remain free during the appeal process.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and sentencing of the appellant. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments challenging the conviction and evidence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's consideration of bail factors and merits. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. balance between appeal merits and hardship. (Para 7) |
| 5. final decision to grant bail. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
O R D E R
% 10.09.2025 CRL.M.(BAIL) 853/2025
1. The present application under Section 430 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking stay of judgment of conviction dated 20.11.2024 and the suspension of order on sentence dated 27.01.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Saket Courts in case SC No. 209/2019, arising out of FIR No. 108/2018 under Section 354 /354-D/324 of IPC and Section 8 /12 of POSCO Act registered at Police Station Jaitpur, Delhi.
CRL.A. 499/2025 Page 1 of 5
2. Vide the impugned order on sentence, the appellant/applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 /354-D/324 IPC&
Section 8 &12 of POCSO Act 2012and has been sentenced to undergo (i) rigorous imprisonment for the period of two years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of two month for the offence punishable under Section 354of the IPC.
(ii) rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of two month for the offence punishable under Section 354 -D of the IPC.
(iii) rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of two month for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.
(iv) rigorous imprisonment for the period of three year along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of two month for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
(v) rigorous imprisonment for the period of two year along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of two month for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act. All the sentence shall run concurrently.
CRL.A. 499/2025 Page 2 of 5
3. The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant was arrested on 17.02.2018. He was granted bail vide order dated 25.04.2018 by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court and he was on bail throughout the trial. Subsequently, the applicant was taken into custody on the date of conviction. Further, the learned ASJ, Saket Court vide order dated 03.02.2025 suspended the sentence of applicant to enable him to file the present appeal. His sentence was suspended from time to time by a Co- ordinate bench of this Court. He would further submit that the applicant has clean antecedents and was wrongly convicted by the Trial Court.
3.1 The learned counsel would further submit that the applicant is young man and sole bread earner of his family consisting of his wife, son and three daughters.
4. On merits, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned judgment and order on sentence are contrary to law, evidence, and probabilities of the case, having been passed on mere presumptions, surmises and conjectures. He would further submit that the medical evidence has been wrongly appreciated and does not establish any link with the alleged offence. Furthermore, the trial court also failed to appreciate the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-14.
4.1 The learned counsel would also submit that PW-2 admitted, in her cross-examination, that the complaint was lodged the next morning, casting doubt on the genuineness of the FIR. He would further urge on the fact that PW-3, in his cross examination, stated the injuries could be self-inflicted. 4.2 Furthermore, he would submit that, according to PW-5, victim’s age was not properly verified by the school authorities, th
