$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 136/2025 JITENDER @ KALLU .....Appellant Through: Ms. Ruchira Goel and Ms. Ritika Rao, Advs. (DHCLSC) (through VC)

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for State with SI Kushank, PS Swaroop Nagar CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

O R D E R

% 12.12.2025 CRL.M.(BAIL) 1918/2025 (suspension of sentence)

1. The present application has been filed under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) on behalf of the appellant seeking suspension of his sentence in connection with order on sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi on 10.12.2024 under Section 363/366/376 (2) (i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 in FIR No. 71/2016.

2. The learned ASJ vide judgment dated 21.10.2024 convicted the applicant for offence punishable u/s 363/366/376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The applicant vide order dated 10.12.2024 was ordered to undergo four years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC; four years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC; and ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000/- for the offence under Section 376 (2) (i). All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The cumulative fine imposed by the learned ASJ amounted to ₹4,000/-.

3. Learned APP for State vehemently opposed the present application for suspension of sentence submitting to the effect that the impugned judgment and order on sentence has been passed in accordance with the law and there is no illegality of any kind thereto.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. The principles governing suspension of sentence are settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For suspension of sentences, the Court has long held that suspension should ordinarily be considered liberally so that the statutory right of appeal is meaningful and not rendered illusory by efflux of time.

6. At the same time, it is to be kept in mind that post-conviction suspension stands on a different footing from pre-trial bail, and that appellate courts must not re-appreciate the entire evidence when considering suspension of sentence.

7. In the present case, the applicant has undergone around 2 years and 2 months of the sentence meted out to him.

8. Ordinarily, the gravity of the offences for which the applicant has been convicted would dissuade this court from suspending his sentence, especially given that he has only served around two years of his ten years sentence.

9. However, the victim, who is now the applicant’s wife, has appeared regularly in this court and prayed that the applicant be released on bail and his sentence be suspended so that she may receive aid and assistance in caring for their two children.

10. On humanitarian grounds, considering the best interests of the victim and her two children, this Court deems it fit to suspend the applicant’s sentence and enlarge him on bail during the pendency of the present appeal.

11. Accordingly, sentence awarded to the applicant vide order on sentence dated 10.12.2024 passed by the learned ASJ, FTSC (POCSO), North District, Rohini Courts Complex, Delhi, is hereby suspended, subject to deposit of fine amount (if unpaid) and the applicant is released on bail, subject to him furnishing a bail bond in the sum of ₹20,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court on the following terms and conditions:

(a) The applicant shall furnish his permanent address to the Investigation Officer within two weeks of his release and in case he changes this address, he will inform the Investigation Officer concerned and this Court;

(b) The applicant shall appear before the Court as and when the