logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 479 print Preview print Next print
Court : Supreme Court of India
Case No : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4907 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Parties : Manraj Versus State of Rajasthan\r\n
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ----- For the Respondent: -----
Date of Judgment : 25-03-2026
Head Note :-
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(l) and 6 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
- Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. Catch Words:
- suspension of sentence
- bail
- POCSO Act
- IPC
- Special Leave Petition

3. Summary:
The High Court refused to stay the trial court’s 20‑year imprisonment awarded under Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner, aged 19 at the time, was convicted under IPC Sections 363 and 366 as well as the POCSO provisions, with the victim being 17 years old. The trial court imposed a 20‑year term and a fine of Rs. 50,000. After hearing counsel for both sides, the Court exercised its discretion in favor of the petitioner, suspending the substantive sentence and directing release on bail subject to conditions. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of, along with any pending applications.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. The High Court has declined to suspend the substantive order of sentence of 20 years imposed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, "the POCSO Act), respectively.

2. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was 19 years of age. He was put to trial for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366, respectively of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC") and Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act, respectively.

3. At the end of the trial, the Trial Court held the accused guilty of the alleged crime.

4. The maximum sentence that has been imposed by the Trial Court is 20 years, as noted above, with fine of Rs.50,000/-. The age of the victim at the relevant point of time was 17 years.

5. We heard Mr. Namit Saxena, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Puneet Parihar, the learned counsel appearing for the State.

6. Having regard to the nature of the evidence on record, we are persuaded to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner.

7. The substantive order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is hereby suspended, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to terms and conditions as the Trial Court may deem fit to impose.

8. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.

9. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal