IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO.

1 of 2026 In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2530 of 2025 ==========================================================

DEEPAK S/O MUNNABHAI RAMDHANI THATHERA (KANSARA)

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

O I PATHAN(7684) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 NOTICE THROUGH SPEED POST UNSERVED for the RESPONDENT(s)

No. 2 MR MANAN MEHTA APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 12/03/2026

IA ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent State. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.

2. By way of this application under Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, applicant, seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him by the Sessions Court concerned for the offence punishable under Sections 4(2) & 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act.

3. The present appeal and the application for suspension of sentence arise from the judgment dated

26.02.2024 and order of sentence passed in Special POCSO Case No.216 of 2020, whereby, the applicant herein was convicted and sentenced as under:

4. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present application are that the minor victim and the applicant due to their neighbourhood fell into love, as a result, on 05.08.2020, they left their respective house and stayed together at different places till 03.09.2020. On the basis of FIR and upon filing of the chargesheet, the trial Court on the conclusion of the trial, held guilty the accused for the offences as referred above.

5. Learned advocate Mr. O. I. Pathan, appearing on behalf of the applicant while praying for suspension of sentence contended that, the victim and accused had been in relations and in order to getting married, they stayed together for about 28 days. The accused was throughout on bail. The appeal against the conviction take considerable time for its final adjudication. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the prayer may be considered.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Manan Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction as passed by the trial Court and contended that the victim was minor and the contention which are in the nature of defense cannot be appreciated at this stage.

7. Though served, no body appears on behalf of respondent no. 2.

8. Issue arises as to whether the applicant has made out a case for suspension of sentence?

9. We have carefully examined the case records and considered the submissions made at the bar. In the facts of the present case, prior to the FIR, the victim and accused had been in relations and on account of such relations, they voluntarily remained together for about 28 days. The applicant was throughout on bail. The contention of possibility of delay in adjudication of the appeal deserves consideration. In such circumstances, we are persuaded to exercise our discretion in favour of the applicant convict for the purpose of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

10. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent. The sentence of the applicant awarded vide judgment dated 26.02.2024 by the learned Special (POCSO) Judge, City Sessions Court, Court No. 11 in Special (POCSO) Case No. 216 of 2020 is suspended during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal and the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to condition that he will not leave India with