The evidentiary support must substantiate allegations of serious crimes against the accused without granting bail.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

4 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Records have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated

20.02.2025 and sentenced vide order dated 28.02.2025 in connection with Special Case No. 295 of 2022 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII- cum-Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Nalanda, Bihar Sharif, (for short, ‘SC and ST (PoA) Act’) for the offence punishable under Sections 342 , 452 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and has been ordered to undergo rigorous life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 30,000/- for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six month. For the sake of brevity, the sentences awarded under other sections are not mentioned.

4. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that on 20.12.2022 at 12.00 O’clock at night, the appellant entered her house and took her away in the garden of one Alakhdeo Yadav and committed rape on her, thereafter the appellant threatened to kill her.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that P.W.1 is mother of the victim but she is not supporting the said occurrence. It is also submitted that P.W.10 is the doctor, who has examined the victim and given his opinion that no injury was found on the entire part of the body of the victim and there is no sign of rape.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the prayer of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and release on bail.

7. Having regard to the evidences available on the record, wherein it is specific case of the victim that she was lifted away from her house in the night hours by this appellant then she was subjected to rape and the fact that the FSL report has established that exhibit marked-‘3’ (Source- Blood sample of the appellant) contributes DNA in the genetic profile obtained from the source of exhibit marked- 1/B (Source-Blood mixed semen stained panty cuttings) and in the cross-examination the Deputy Director, FSL (P.W.12) has stated that semen was detected on the cloth etc. by the Biological Department of the Laboratory and thereafter DNA profiling was done, in the kind of materials present on record, we are not inclined to grant suspension of sentence and release on bail to the appellant. The prayer is refused.

8. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only prima-facie and tentative in nature for purpose of consideration of prayer for suspension of sentence and bail of the appellant which would not cause prejudice to either of the parties.

9. List this appeal for hearing on its turn.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)