$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 355/2025 RAMLAL @ CHOTEPAL .....Appellant Through: Ms. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate (DHCLSC) with Ms. Devyani Singh, Advocate.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Mahavir, PS DBG Road CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

O R D E R

% 13.02.2026 CRL.M.(BAIL) 625/2025

1. This is an application seeking interim suspension of sentence by the accused in S.C. 421/2018 of the file of Court of Additional Sessions Judge (PoCSO), Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. The appellant/accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children vide from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the PoCSO Act) judgment vide dated 26.11.2024 and order on sentence dated 14.01.2025 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years along with a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376(3) IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years along with a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The maximum period of imprisonment he will have to undergo is twenty years.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that he has served nearly 08 years out of the 20 years that has been awarded by the trial court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant draws my attention to the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the testimony of the victim where she has consistently stated that she was 20 years old. It is submitted that if that be the case, no offence under the PoCSO Act would be made out. If the girl is above 18 years, then punishment could also not have been awarded under Section 376(3) of the IPC.

In such circumstances, the sentence that could have been awarded under Section 376(2) (l) is 10 years which could extend up to life.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application and submitted that the appellant/accused has no criminal antecedents.

5. The application is opposed by learned counsel for the victim on the ground that the evidence on record including the medical evidence clearly supports the prosecution case and therefore it is not a case for the suspension of sentence.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Since PW1 has consistently stated that she is 20 years old, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, the offence under Section 4 of PoCSO Act or the punishment under Section 376(3) IPC would not come into play. The minimum sentence for the offence of rape punishable under Section 376(2)(l)

would be 10 years which can extend up to life.

8. It is seen from the nominal roll that the appellant/accused has served nearly 08 years out of the 20 year sentence. Since this appeal is of the year 2025, there is no possibility the appeal being heard in the near future.

9. Hence, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is suspended during the pendency of the appeal on execution of a personal bond of ₹25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant shall not commit any offence(s) while on bail and shall appear before this Court as and when directed.

(ii) The appellant shall provide his mobile number and residential address to the Station House Officer (SHO) concerned, on which he shall remain available. In case of change of his mobile number or residential address, the appellant shall promptly inform the SHO concerned as well as this Court.

(iii) The appellant shall not directly/indirectly contact the victim or any of the other prosecution witnesses.

(iv) He shall not contact the victim or her family in any manner.

(v) Needless to say, in the event of violation of any of the aforementioned condition(s), the suspension of sentence granted shall forthwith stand