Convictions involving sexual offences against minors must be treated with utmost caution; bail is not granted without extraordinary circumstances.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present application has been moved under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of Criminal Jail Appeal filed by the Appellant Sandeep, who stands convicted under Sections 363 , 366A, 1

376(2)(n), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , and Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 , by the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar. The appeal against the said conviction and sentence is pending before this Court and is yet to be listed for final hearing.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the State has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the judgment of conviction suffers from serious factual and legal infirmities.

4. It is contended that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of five days, even though the younger brother of the victim was allegedly an eyewitness to the occurrence. Yet, his statement was neither recorded by the Investigating Officer nor was he produced during trial, which suggests suppression of vital evidence.

5. It is contended that the failure to bring forth any impartial witness significantly erodes the credibility of the State’s version. Specifically, reference is made to her deposition regarding the use of a handkerchief to cause unconsciousness, without any corresponding medical or forensic investigation.

6. The learned counsel also raised doubts about how the site plan was prepared, arguing that the Investigating Officer (PW7) had no independent knowledge of the location and acted solely on the version of the victim, who admitted during cross-examination that she had not revisited the place of confinement, thereby raising questions about the authenticity of the mapping.

7. The age of the victim was also challenged, citing that the victim claimed to be studying in Class 9^th at the time of the incident, whereas PW5 (the victim’s former school teacher) deposed that she had passed Class 7^th and left school in April 2021, months before the alleged incident in September 2021. No school admission record or certificate from the new school has been placed on record to verify her actual age.

2

8. Further, it was submitted that the medical evidence did not support the claim of sexual assault and there were no signs of injuries or physical trauma that corroborate the allegations.

9. It was also submitted that the Appellant was on bail during the entire course of trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He has already undergone more than 4 years and 3 months of incarceration (with remission), or 3 years and 9 months without remission, which amounts to more than one-third of the sentence awarded. On that basis, the Appellant- applicant has prayed for suspension of sentence and his release on bail during the pendency of appeal.

10. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, opposed the bail application and submitted that the judgment of conviction is based on a thorough appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. No case for grant of bail is made out.

11. It was argued that the offence committed by the Appellant is of a grave and heinous nature, involving the repeated sexual exploitation of a minor girl. The victim's evidence is consistent and credible, and the trial court has provided valid reasons for relying on her testimony.

12. It was further submitted that the medical evidenc