Prolonged custody and insufficient evidence justify suspension of sentence during appeal under the POCSO Act.

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

7 22-12-2025 Re.: I.A. No.02 of 2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant, and the learned counsel for the State.

2. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during pendency of the present appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 4(1) of the POCSO Act . All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has wrongly been convicted by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record. Further, it has been submitted that the appellant has been in custody since 05.09.2018 and has remained in custody for more than seven years, and there is no chance of the appeal being taken up for hearing in near future. It is further submitted that the doctor (PW-5), who was examined during the trial, has stated that he did not find any injury on the private part of the victim. It is also submitted that there has been non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 53A of the Cr.PC. and Section 34(2) of the POCSO Act . In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 7 SCC 263 . Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied upon the case of Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the period of custody is a relevant factor and the appellant has already remained in custody for more than seven years. Learned counsel has also relied upon the case of Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab , reported in (1977) 4 SCC

291 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the suspension of sentence is justified where the Court is not in a position to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, during pendency of the present criminal appeal, let the sentence of the appellant, named above, be suspended and, he be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Session Judge-VI-cum-Special POCSO Act , Muzaffarpur in connection with POCSO G.R. No. 144 of 2018.

7. Realisation of fine, if any, shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal.

8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 02 of 2025 stands disposed of.

(Sudhir Singh, ACJ)