$~72

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.A. 269/2024

VISHNU PRASAD .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Mr. Dhruv

Chauduary, Mr. Shubham Sourav and

Mr. Vijit Singh, Advocates.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for the

State with SI Ved Prakash, PS -

Jaitpur.

Ms. Astha and Ms. Megha Singh,

Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

O R D E R

% 15.01.2026

CRL.M.(BAIL) 85/2026

1. This is an application under Section 430 read with Section

528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking interim suspension of the sentence on the ground that marriage of the appellant’s daughter has more or less been fixed and that for the purpose of solemnizing the marriage, the appellant needs to raise funds and, therefore, a portion of his ancestral property has to be sold. For the said

purpose, he seeks suspension of sentence for three months.

2. The application is strongly opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who submits that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the discretionary power of this Court is not required to be invoked in this case. He submits that four weeks has already been granted and, therefore, no further suspension is called for.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused who was about 50 years old had committed digital rape on the victim who was about

5 years old.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is inconsistency in the statement of the victim girl. At one point, she says that the accused had only touched her private part whereas the prosecution case is that it is a case of digital rape. Therefore, he submits that, in the light of the inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim, the appellant, even on merits, is entitled to suspension of sentence.

5. Heard both sides.

6. It is well settled that when an application for suspension of sentence is considered, the appellate court is only to examine if there is such patent infirmity in the order of conviction that renders the order of conviction prima facie erroneous. Where there is evidence that has been considered by the trial court, it is not open to a Court considering the suspension of sentence to reassess and/ reanalyze the same evidence and take a different view to suspend the execution of the sentence and release the convict on bail. The argument advanced can be considered while the appeal is heard on merits.

7. The ground cited in this application regarding the marriage of the daughter is concerned, it is seen that the eldest son of the appellant is 29 years old. In such circumstances, the stand of the appellant/ accused that there is no one at home to make the necessary arrangements for the marriage does not appear to be correct.

8. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and since he has already been granted four week’s suspension by the earlier order, no further suspension is granted.

9. Hence, the application for suspension of the sentence is dismissed.

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J JANUARY 15, 2026 kd