$~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 282/2024 DHARMENDER KUMAR YADAV .....Appellant Through: Mr. G.S. Sharma, Mr. V.K. Sharma and Mr. R.A. Sharma, Advocates versus STATE GNCT OF DELHI & ANR. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State Mr. Gautam Khazanchi and Ms. Aditi Kukreja, Advocates for victim CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 17.12.2025 CRL.M.A. 37681/2025 (suspension of sentence)

1. The present application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal.

2. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the judgement of conviction dated 13.12.2023 and order on sentence dated 02.02.2024 vide which he has been directed to undergo SI for a period of 6 years along with payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof he would undergo SI for a period of 2 months, for the offence punishable under Section 10 POCSO; and RI for a period of 6 years along with payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof he would undergo SI for a period of 2 months, for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently and the benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

was provided to the appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had taken a plea of alibi, and in this regard refers to the order dated 06.01.2015 passed by this Court in BAIL APPLN. 2594/2014 where, considering the statement of the prosecutor that the allegations were not fortified by the CCTV footage of the petrol pump, the appellant was directed to be released on bail. Learned counsel submits that the Trial Court failed to appreciate this aspect as well as the testimony of PW-15 (the owner of the petrol pump) in the correct manner. He submits that a photograph was also placed on record (Mark P-15/A), however, that evidence, too, was disregarded.

4. Issue notice.

5. Learned APP for the State accepts notice.

6. The present application is opposed by the learned APP for the State and the learned Amicus Curiae for the child victim. They refer to the impugned judgment to submit that the appellant failed to step into the witness box himself or bring on record any defence evidence to conclusively prove his plea of alibi.

7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties as well as gone through the aforesaid order, the testimony of PW-15, and also the testimony of the victim. The appellant’s nominal roll has been placed on record, as per which he has undergone about 2 ½ years of incarceration.

8. In view of the above, the sentence of the appellant is suspended during the pendency of the appeal on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty J.M./link J.M. and also subject to the further following conditions:-

(i) The appellant shall provide his mobile number to the Investigating Officer on which he shall remain available during the pendency of the present appeal.

(ii) In case of change of residential address or contact details, the appellant shall promptly inform the same to the concerned Investigating Officer as well as to this Court.

(iii) The appellant shall not directly/indirectly try to get in touch with the victim or any other prosecution witnesses.

(iv) The appellant shall regularly appear before the Court as and when the appeal is taken up for hearing.

9. With the above directions, the present application is disposed of.

10. A copy of this order be communicated electronically forthwith to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and compliance.

11. A copy of this order also be uploaded on the website forthwith.

CRL.A. 282/2024 List in due course.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J DECEMBER 17, 2025 na