Dilip Kumar @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me.

Shri Manish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the accused-appellant and the prosecutrix were almost in the same age group.

They went together on 6th March, 2014 and prosecutrix was then recovered on 16.10.2014. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix is aged 20

years, which is evident from her statement (Ex.D1) recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, in which she has categorically admitted that she accompanied

the appellant on her free will and stayed with him at different places. Their marriage was solemnised at Jodhpur where they started living together.

She was having pregnancy from the appellant. It is contended that the ossification test of the prosecutrix was not conducted. Headmaster of the

relevant time, who allegedly gave admission to the prosecutrix in the school, has not been produced and therefore the school certificate and scholar

register, which have been proved by Kanhaiya Lal (P.W.8) does not carry any evidentiary value in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in

Alamelu & Another Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (2011) 2 SCC 385, Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another, (2008) 13 SCC

133 and this Court in Raju @ Rajkumar Gaudh Vs. State of Rajasthan through PP 2017 (3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1521. The appellant is in jail for last more

than three years and hearing of the appeal is likely to take long.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submits that the accused-appellant does not deserve the indulgence of suspension of

sentence and his application be therefore dismissed.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to suspend the

sentence awarded to the accused-appellant till disposal of the appeal.

It is therefore ordered that the sentence awarded by the learned trial court to the accused appellant Dilip Kumar S/o Shri Bhawarlal in Sessions Case

No.64/2017 (31/2015) shall remain suspended till the final disposal of the appeal; provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along

with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance in this Court on 09.04.2018 and whenever

called upon to do so.

Accordingly the application for suspension of sentence is disposed off.