A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389(1) -- Suspension of fine -- While convicting an accused, if a direction is issued against him to pay a fine, such a direction can be suspended in the exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 389 of the CrPC.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389(1) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Suspension of sentence/ fine -- While suspending the sentence, especially the sentence of fine, the Appellate Court can impose conditions -- Court has to keep in mind that if a condition of deposit of an amount is imposed while suspending the sentence of fine, the same should not be such that it is impossible for the appellant to comply with it, defeating his right of appeal against the order of conviction, which may also violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

(Para 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(b) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- NDPS Case -- Suspension of sentence -- Recovery of 18.17 grams of heroin – Conviction for 4 years – Appeal against conviction – Appeal raises arguable issues -- The applicant has undergone an actual sentence of 06 months and 10 days and there is no other case registered against him -- Hearing of the appeal is likely to take some time -- Sentence suspended.

(Para 2, 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148A -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Appeal against conviction – Suspension of sentence – Condition to deposit 20% of compensation amount -- Appellate Court was required to consider whether the case falls under exception or not – Impugned order set aside, Ld. Appellate Court directed to pass the order afresh, after granting opportunity to the parties with regard to, whether the petitioner is able to make out a ground that his case falls under exceptional category which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount or whether the petitioner is liable to pay less amount of compensation.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 21(c), 52A – NDPS case – Suspension of sentence – Appeal against conviction – Sample of contraband – Non-compliance of procedure -- Appellant sentenced to undergo 15 years’ R.I. with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation of six months’ R.I. -- Appellant has already undergone almost three years and is in custody since the date of judgment and order i.e. 30.08.2022 continuously -- Court prima facie satisfied that provisions of Section 52A (2) of the Act were not complied with --  Bail allowed.

(Para 1, 5, 11-14)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Suspension of sentence – Condition to deposit  20% of compensation -- Petitioner directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by trial Court, while passing the said direction, the Appellate Court has not referred to the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18509 and no reason given by the said Court – Condition of deposit set aside, Appellate Court directed to decide afresh.

(Para 4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(2), 13(1)(e) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 109 – Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 8(3) – Suspension of conviction/ sentence -- High Court overturned the acquittal and has convicted the appellant for three years – Appellant who is a MLA will incur disqualification as a result of the conviction -- High Court has not considered the main question whether the view taken by the Special Court was a possible view -- Conviction and sentence suspended. Afjal Ansari’s case (2024) 2 SCC 187 relied.

(Para 2-6)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Cheque bounce case -- Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence – Pre-condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount -- Appellate Court required to consider whether the case falls in the exception or not -- Appellate Court directed to re-examine the case.

(Para 4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Fixed sentence – Appeal against conviction – Suspension of sentence -- Out five years, the appellant has undergone half of the sentence – Appeal not likely to reach before he completes the entire sentence, a case is made out for grant of suspension of sentence – When there is a fixed term sentence and especially when the appeal is not likely to be heard before completing entire period of sentence, normally suspension of sentence and bail should be granted.

(Para 1-6)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Appeal in cheque bounce conviction – Suspension of sentence – Deposit of 20% compensation -- Appellate Court passed order in a mechanical manner without giving any reasons directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court within 60 days – Direction to deposit 20% of compensation amount set aside, appellate Court directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner seeking suspension of sentence in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case 2023 (10) SCC 446 -- Till fresh orders are passed, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.

(Para 8, 9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Deposit of compensation of 20% amount – Exception to -- Suspension of sentence – Ld. Additional Sessions Judge directed to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation and further cancel the order of suspension of sentence of the petitioner for non-compliance of the said order – Held, Lower Appellate Court was required to consider whether the present case falls in the exception or not – Ld. lower Appellate Court directed to re-examine the case after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances and decide whether it is an appropriate case that warrants waiver of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by learned trial Court – Matter remanded back.

(Para 1-5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389, 397, 401 – Cheque bounce complaint – Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence – Condition to deposit of 20% of compensation – Exception to -- Where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded -- Both the Sessions Courts and the High Court have proceeded on the erroneous premise that deposit of minimum 20% amount is an absolute rule which does not accommodate any exception – Orders passed  by High Court set aside, revision petition restored.

(Para 6-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 323, 325 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Murder – Life imprisonment – Suspension of sentence in appeal -- Applicant/appellant No.5 has already undergone actual custody of 02 years, 03 months and 04 days – Sentence of co-convicts has already been suspended by – Appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future – Without commenting on the merits of the case remaining sentence of applicant/appellant No.5 suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

(Para 6-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B, 411 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 – Chain snatching case -- Appeal against conviction – Suspension of sentence -- Appeal is of the year 2022 -- Applicant-appellant has undergone 01 year, 08 months and 11 days out of the sentence awarded of 05 years and the appeal is not likely to be taken up for final hearing anytime in the near future – Applicant-appellant is not involved in any other case, further incarceration is not required – Sentence suspended.

(Para 8, 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 – Chain snatching case -- Appeal against conviction – Suspension of sentence – Applicant has undergone total custody of 01 year & 09 months (1/3rd) out of the substantive sentence of 05 years -- Without commenting on the merits of the case the application allowed and the sentence of the applicant/ appellant suspended during pendency of the appeal.

(Para 1, 7, 8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence -- Endeavour on the part of the Court should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal  -- If the answer to the above said question is to be in the affirmative, as a necessary corollary, he should not be kept behind the bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of the appeal, which usually take very long for decision and disposal.

(Para 33)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence -- Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution -- Such would not be a correct approach.

(Para 33)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 27 -- Murder – Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence by High Court -- High Court has gone into the issues like political rivalry, delay in lodging the FIR, some over-writings in the First Information Report etc. -- All these aspects, will have to be looked into at the time of the final hearing of the appeals filed by the convicts -- High Court has done is something impermissible -- In the overall view of the matter, High Court committed a serious error in suspending the substantive order of sentence of the convicts – Appeals allowed, impugned order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside -- Convicts ordered to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of three days.

(Para 34-40)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder – Conviction by Trial Court – Appeal -- Suspension of sentence --  Applicants/ appellants have undergone custody of 05 years 08 months and 26 days including post-conviction custody period of 03 years, 09 months and 06 days -- There are fairly arguable points on the merits -- Keeping in view the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicants; as well case of the applicants is covered by the ratio of law in Dharam Pal’s case 1999 (4) R.C.R (Criminal) 600 and the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, Court deemed it appropriate to suspend the remaining sentence of the applicants-appellants during pendency of the appeal.

(Para 8-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 302, 216, 120-B, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Murder – Suspension of sentence -- Involvement in other cases -- Applicant/ appellant has undergone custody of 11 years 04 months 19 days including post-conviction period of 08 years and 29 days -- Sentence of co-accused suspended, applicant is covered by the ratio of law in Dharam Pal’s case 1999 (4) R.C.R (Criminal) 600, and the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, court deemed appropriate to suspend the remaining sentence of the applicant/appellant during pendency of the appeal.

(Para 1, 4, 10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 8, 18, 67 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- NDPS case – Suspension of sentence -- R.I. for ten years with fine – Appellant 62 years of aged has undergone five years and six months of custody – Contention that statements u/s 67 of Act, 1985 could not be relied upon in view of the judgment in Tofan Singh’s case 2021) 4 SCC 1 = (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15591-- Appeal is likely to take some time for final hearing and the appellant has undergone over half the term of imprisonment, the appellant ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 4-6)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B -- Murder -- Life imprisonment – Suspension of sentence -- Appeal against the conviction is pending before the High Court since 2018 -- High Court, however, declined to grant suspension of sentence pending the disposal of the appeal – Petitioner has undergone over twelve years and six months of actual imprisonment – Since the appeal before the High Court is likely to take time for disposal, Supreme Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail, pending the disposal of the appeal.

(Para 1-4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389, 421, 446 – Conviction in 4 cheque bounce cases – Suspension of sentence in appeals – Brother/Appellant stood surety for Rs. 1 lac – Convict/Appellant in appeals absented and bail bond/ surety bond forfeited – Appellate court directed the surety/appellant to deposit Rs. 1 lac each in four cases – Recovery warrants issued – Convict/ Appellant has already appeared before the lower Appellate Court -- Absence of convict/ appellant was beyond the control of the Surety/appellant – Penalty reduced to Rs.10,000/-.

(Para 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Conviction in rape case – Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal – Bare perusal of the case of the prosecution reveals a consensual relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix/ an adult lady aged 35 years having two children and she entered into the relationship with the applicant with her eyes open; only if such relationship could not result in a logical end she cannot be allowed to come and allege rape by the applicant; there was no medical evidence, such an eventuality arose on account of refusal by the prosecutrix to undergo a medical examination; no private witness was examined by the prosecution; only after the applicant got married did the prosecutrix allege that the relationship between them was without her consent showing falsity in her claim; the applicant has undergone over ten months of custody; during the course of his trial he was on bail which concession he did not misuse and that the appeal filed by the applicant, which has been admitted for regular hearing, is not likely to be heard in the near future – Considering totality of facts, sentence of the applicant ordered to be suspended.

(Para 2-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Appeal by convict -- Suspension of sentence – Deposit of fine of Rs. 2 lacs as pre-condition – Harsh and onerous condition -- Legality of -- Appeal of the petitioner is pending and the culpability of the offence is yet to be determined by the Court, therefore, any such onerous condition, as is likely to deprive the accused of the benefit of the order granting suspension of sentence, should not normally be imposed by a Court while granting a benefit -- Petition allowed and the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, partly modified to the extent whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the fine as a pre-condition for suspension of sentence.

(Para 2-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378, 389 -- Cheque bounce case -- Conviction in -- Appeal against -- Suspension of sentence -- Non-deposit of 20% compensation within 60 days -- Submits that the petitioner had already deposited an amount equivalent to 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation during the proceedings of trial and that the petitioner presently is facing a financial crunch and is unable to deposit another 20% though he has a good case on merits -- Lower Appellate Court directed to take necessary steps to hear the appeal and dispose off the same in the given time – If the petitioner or his counsel is not present on the dates fixed, it shall be open to the Lower Appellate Court to nominate any counsel from Free Legal Aid.

(Para 1-3)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 – Cheque bounce case -- Conviction u/s 138 NI Act – One year RI and Rs.60 lacs as compensation – Appeal against – Suspension of sentence with pre-condition of deposit of 20% of cheque amount given as compensation – Sustainability of – Direction(s) appears to be oppressive, especially given that a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs became assessed -- Necessarily, also it negates the efficacy of the impugned order, besides fetters the liberty of the petitioner – Held, Appellate Court was enjoined to ensure his bringing inter se proportionality inter se the compensation, and/ or the cheque amount, and, to thereafter, impose a tenable, and, just condition for the orders, suspending the execution of sentence of imprisonment, as imposed upon the convict(s)-appellant(s), by the learned trial Judge concerned, rather taking the fullest effect, through his hence directing them to deposit a reasonable, and, just sum, before the learned trial Judge concerned – Petition accepted, Court proceeded to modify the impugned order, through a direction to deposit 10% amount of the disputed cheque amount, before the learned trial Court concerned.

(Para 6-11)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Cheque bounce case -- Conviction u/s 138 NI Act – Suspension of sentence on furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 1 Lakh – Later on an application by complainant, Appellate Court proceeded to direct the appellant, to pay an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- comprising 20% of the compensation amount to the complainant within one month – Order made by Appellate Court is a discreet, and, tacit attempt, to proceed to impermissibly review, and scuttle the effect of the binding order -- It is ridden with a vice of infirmity, if so, and, even if assuming the order did hold some aura or tinge of validity, yet until and unless there was some evidently deterrent circumstances, prevailing upon the learned Appellate Court, as comprised in the appellant rather deliberately delaying the making of an expeditious decision, upon the appeal, there was no occasion for the learned Appellate Court to make the order -- De hors finality being assignable to P-3/order suspending sentence, High Court directed the convict / petitioner to deposit 15% of the cheque amount before the learned Appellate Court within one month.

(Para 2-9)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Cheque bounce case -- Interim deposit of compensation u/s 148 of NI Act – Restoration of compensation to accused/appellant – Order of – Requirement of -- Legally incumbent upon the learned First Appellate Court, to order that in case there is allowing of the appeal, as preferred before it, by the accused-convict, thereupon the interim compensation, as determined, be restored or refunded to the accused/ convict, by the complainant -- However, the directions, as legally required to be made, while being seized with an application, u/s 148 of the NI Act, are not existing, hence the order suffers from an infirmity.

(Para 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Cheque bounce case – Conviction in -- Suspension of sentence – Pre-deposit of 20% of compensation amount – Non-waiver of – Reasoning for – Requirement of -- While dealing with the exceptional circumstances, the Court has to justify the direction for waiver by assigning reasons – If a prayer for waiver of pre-deposit has been made before the Appellate Court, the minimum requirement for compliance of principle of natural justice would be that the litigant comes to know from the order passed that the plea raised by him were considered and dealt with -- Supreme Court decision was not considered -- It is not forth coming from the order that the pleas raised by the petitioner for waiver of pre-deposit were dealt with, it is so, as the Court proceeded on the basis that there is no discretion for waiver -- Impugned orders are set aside -- Petitions disposed of by remanding the matter back to the Appellate Court, to consider the application for suspension of sentence and prayer for waiver of pre-deposit afresh in view of decision of the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Deswal's case 2019 AIR (Supreme Court) 2956 = (2019) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 10018 = 2019 (1) L.A.R. 21.

(Para 9-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 389 -- Dowry death – Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence – Initially, applicant was declared innocent by the police during enquiry and she was summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Already undergone actual sentence of 04 years, 07 months and 29 days out of rigorous imprisonment for life – Case is covered by Dharam Pal's case, 1999(4) RCR (Criminal), 600 -- Appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future, the remaining sentence of applicant is ordered to be suspended during pendency of the appeal.

(Para 3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 366  -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 6 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Suspension of sentence –Applicant has undergone 03 years, 05 months and 11 days including remission, out of the maximum substantive sentence of 10 years under 366 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 – Applicant-appellant is not shown to be involved in any other cases as on date – Appeal is of the year 2019, it is not likely to be heard in near future -- Without commenting upon the merits of the case, the sentence suspended during the pendency of this appeal.

(Para 4, 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- NDPS case -- Suspension of sentence – Keeping in view the fact that more than half of the sentence has already been undergone by the applicant-appellant and the recovery which has been effected in the other case in which he is said to have been involved was non-commercial, with the appeal not likely to be heard in near future, the application is allowed -- Sentence of applicant-appellant suspended during the pendency of instant appeal.

(Para 4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – NDPS case -- Recovery of 93 Kgs of poppy straw -- Interim bail in pending appeal -- To attend mother for her medical treatment -- Applicant was convicted on 17.09.2010 also for a period of 10 years and due to said fact he has remained in custody throughout and his sentence started running thereafter on completion of earlier sentence -- Applicant allowed interim bail for a period of one week.

(Para 4, 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 376, 120-B – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 – Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (104 of 1956), Sections 4, 5, 6 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Suspension of sentence – Applicant undergone sentence of 3 years, 11 months and 23 days out of 7 years -- No other case pending against him -- Appeal being of the year 2020 is not likely to be heard in near future, so taking into consideration the period undergone and the attending circumstances and the fact that sentence of co-accused of applicant has already been suspended, sentence of applicant/appellant No.2 suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

(Para 5, 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(c), 50 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Suspension of sentence -- Applicant/appellant has already undergone a sentence of 3 years 3 months and 13 days, including remission -- Even if an accused waived off his right to have the search conducted in the presence of an Executive Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, it is incumbent upon the police official to produce the accused before an Executive Officer or a Gazetted Officer -- Appeal is not likely to be heard in near future and also keeping in view the fact that the applicant has undergone considerable part of sentence, the application of the applicant/appellant accepted.

(Para 2-4)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 23(c), 25A, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389(1) -- NDPS case -- Suspension of sentence -- Conviction u/s 23(c) and 25A of the NDPS Act for R.I. for ten years/ 3 years respectively – In appeal, High Court suspended the sentence on account of 4 years 4 months incarnation – Held, where the trial has ended in an order of conviction, the High Court must be duly cognizant of the fact that a finding of guilt has been arrived at by the Trial Judge at the conclusion of the trial -- This is not to say that the High Court is deprived of its power to suspend the sentence under Section 389(1) of CrPC -- High Court may do so for sufficient reasons which must have a bearing on the public policy underlying the incorporation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act -- On the basis of the material for conviction, Court find no case for suspension of sentence u/s 389(1) of CrPC -- Order granting suspension of sentence unsustainable – Appeal allowed.

(Para 5, 9-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-D, 377 – Gang rape case -- Suspension of sentence -- Conviction for 20 years – Applicant has already undergone more than 5 years and 4 months of his actual sentence -- There are many debatable points in the appeal and the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future keeping in view the prevailing pandemic situation -- Appeal is already admitted, application allowed and remaining sentence of applicant suspended during pendency of the appeal.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A and 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Conviction for 12 years in FIR u/s 363, 366-A and 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POSCO Act – Suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal -- 3 year 10 months sentence undergone – No date or time about the incident given by the victim -- Prosecutrix was got recovered by the police after a period of more than 5 months -- Specific stand of the applicant-appellant that there were friendly relations between them -- Victim has deposed that she was kept in a rented room for about five months -- Thus, she has every opportunity to escape from the custody of the applicant during the said period -- No specific proof of age of the victim -- Many debatable points in the appeal, which is not likely to be heard in near future keeping in view the prevailing pandemic situation -- Application allowed and further sentence of applicant-appellant suspended during pendency of the appeal.

(Para 6, 7)