By Tanishka Shah
The appellant was convicted under Section 354-B and Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years under Section 354-B IPC, one year under Section 451 IPC, and three years under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, along with fines for each offence.

During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant sought suspension of his sentence. The Court noted that he had already served approximately two years of imprisonment, leaving only one year remaining. Additionally, he had no prior criminal history, and his jail conduct was found to be satisfactory.

The Court also took into account precedents such as Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259), where the Supreme Court stated that in cases other than life sentences, completing at least 50% of the sentence could be a basis for granting bail.

Considering these factors, the Delhi High Court found it appropriate to suspend the appellant’s sentence. The suspension was granted on the condition that the appellant furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000 along with a surety of the same amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/CMM/Duty Magistrate.

The ruling reinforces the principle that sentence suspension can be considered when a substantial portion of the punishment has already been served and when the accused’s conduct during incarceration is satisfactory. However, the suspension does not imply acquittal and the appeal proceedings will continue.

Case Title: Anil v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: CRL.A. 1036 of 2024

Click here to read/download the judgment