IA ORDER

1. RULE.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M. Shah appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State and learned advocate Ms. Aafrin Saiyed appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. By way of the present application under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant - accused is seeking suspension of sentence and release on regular bail during pendency of the present appeal against the judgment and order passed in Special POCSO Case No.12 of 2018 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Patan on 21.01.2026, whereby, the present applicant - accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 03 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default, imprisonment of 01 month for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and fine of Rs.50,000/-, and in default, rigorous imprisonment of 03 months for the offence punishable under Sections 3(A) and 4 of the POCSO Act. The learned Trial Court was pleased to order that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashok L. Chauhan for the applicant, learned advocate Ms. Aafrin Saiyed, appearing through online mode, for the respondent No.2 and learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the respondent No.1 - State.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Ashok L. Chauhan for the applicant submits that the applicant has been sentenced for the offence under Sections 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(A) and 4 of the POCSO Act. But if the entire evidence is perused, it is on record that the applicant and the victim were in a love relationship and they wanted to get married to each other. There were talks of engagement between them but the parents of the victim refused to get her engaged to the applicant and she had left the company of her parents of her own free will along with her clothes and her money and came to Dhinoj Bus Stand and sat in a rickshaw and went to Mehsana. Thereafter, she had travelled to Ahmedabad in a private vehicle and reached Kathlal and during this time, she had contacted the applicant. Learned advocate further submits that as far as the age of the victim is concerned, there is no evidence on record to prove the age of the victim and considering the evidence on record and the fact that the applicant has been sentenced for a fixed period of 10 years, the present appeal is not likely to be heard in near future and hearing of the same would take some long time no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period with hardened criminals. The applicant has a good case on merits and hence, the application may be allowed and the applicant be enlarged on bail pending hearing and final disposal of the captioned Criminal Appeal.

5. Learned advocate Ms. Aafrin Saiyed for the respondent No.2 – original complainant has submitted that she has filed an affidavit of the original complainant and as per the say of the complainant, the applicant and the victim were young and had a love relationship and the offence was an unintentional love between two consenting adolescence as it appears from the record. The affidavit of the respondent No.2 - original complainant is taken on record.

6. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the respondent No.1 – State has objected to the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicant and has submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the present applicant as he has been involved in a very serious offence, however, necessary orders may be passed in the interest of justice.

7. On perusal of the impugned judgement and order and paper book produced by learned advocate for the applicant on record, the evidence suffers from major contradictions and omissions. Moreover, in the evidence it has emerged that the applicant and the victim were in a love relationship and in her statements, recorded under