***

1. Through judgment dated 09.02.2022, the applicant-Arvind was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court (POCSO), Panipat (for short, the trial court) under Sections 376AB, 376(2) IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. On the basis of such conviction, through order dated 21.02.2022, he was sentenced by the trial court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years with fine. He challenged such conviction and sentence through an appeal filed before this Court being CRA-D-349-2022. The appeal has been admitted for regular hearing and is pending.

2. During the pendency of his aforesaid appeal, the instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant for suspension of his awarded sentence.

3. No reply has been filed by the State. However, learned State counsel has produced the applicant’s custody certificate, which is taken on record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial court has erred in law and in fact by convicting and sentencing the applicant; the applicant does not have any other criminal antecedents; there is no complaint with regard to the applicant’s conduct in jail; as per the alleged victim, on 14.08.2018, the applicant, in a drunken state, indulged in penetrative sex with her but in the alleged victim’s MLR dated 14.08.2018 no injury whatsoever was found on her person; various samples from the person of the alleged victim were taken by the doctor while medically examining her but when all these exhibits were subjected to forensic examination, no semen was detected on any of them; no test was conducted by the prosecution to prove that on the date of the alleged occurrence the applicant was in a drunken state as alleged by the alleged victim; the applicant is also alleged to have given beatings to the alleged victim but no such beating is reflected in the alleged victim’s MLR; the applicant has already undergone actual custody 07 years, 06 months and 01 day, which includes nearly 04 years after his conviction and that the applicant’s appeal, filed by him against his conviction and sentence, which stands admitted for regular hearing, is not likely to be heard in the near future.

5. Learned State counsel does not dispute the applicant’s period of incarceration but opposes the grant of bail to him on the ground that the applicant misused his position as a step-father to rape his minor step-daughter.

6. After considering the afore rival submissions, we find that debatable issues would arise at the time of hearing of the applicant’s appeal filed by him against his conviction. In particular, absence of injuries in the alleged victim’s MLR would be examined. Absence of semen on any of the exhibits of the alleged victim shall also be gone into especially when such exhibits were collected on the day of the alleged occurrence and that prior to their collection, as per the alleged victim’s MLR, she had neither bathed nor washed. The applicant is a first-time offender who has already undergone actual custody of 07 years, 06 months and 01 day, which includes nearly 04 years after his conviction and that the appeal filed by the applicant against his conviction is not likely to be heard in the near future. Therefore, during the pendency of his aforesaid appeal, the applicant/appellant’s sentence deserves to be suspended and it is so ordered. Resultantly, he is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing appropriate bail bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate.

7. Disposed of.

Order accordingly.

********