The court will not reconsider the merits of a case in repeat bail applications unless new substantial grounds are presented.

Heard on I.A No.6497/2024, which is sixth application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of appellant.

The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 377 and 506 Part II of IPC and Section 5(M)/6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years, R.I. 03 years and R.I. for 10 years with fine of 1,000, NIL and Rs.1,000/- respectively, with default stipulations. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. He also submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and committed error in convicting the appellant for aforesaid offences.

The appeal would take considerable time to conclude. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the directions and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be considered.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

Heard counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and record of the court below.

In this sixth bail application, the grounds raised by the appellant are that he is in custody for more than four years and 11 months; no chain has been established to show that the DNA sample taken was kept in safe custody; the MLC report was negative and the amendment in Section 6 of POCSO Act was brought about on 16.8.2019. For this, he has cited the case laws in Ravindra alias Raj v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.7913/2021, decided on 12.3.2024), Atul Namdeo v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.3899/2016, decided on 3.1.2022) a n d Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Cri.) No.4633/2021. Counsel for the appellant has requested for suspension of sentence on the aspect of merits of the case but this court is not inclined to consider those merits again in this sixth application while the earlier two applications were discussed and dismissed on merits. It is true that prior to the amendment of 16.8.2019 the minimum punishment prescribed was ten years but still the appellant has suffered only an approximate period of five years in custody. The chain about safe custody of DNA sample cannot be challenged here in the light of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses undertaken at the stage of trial.

Accordingly, this repeat application is again been dismissed, however, the Registry is directed to list the case within next six months looking to the old pendency of the appeal and also the period of custody of appellant.

List this case for final hearing within the directed period.