The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted interim relief to an appellant convicted under serious sexual offences against a minor, suspending his custodial sentence pending appeal on grounds of prolonged incarceration and the prosecutrix’s own testimony suggesting a consensual relationship. The order underscores the discretionary nature of suspension under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, while reaffirming that interim relief does not prejudge the merits of the appeal.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Ratansingh, was convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366(A) (inducement of minor for illicit intercourse), 376(2)(n) (rape of minor by person in position of trust or authority), and Section 5(1)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The prosecution alleged that he sexually assaulted a minor girl, leading to his arrest and subsequent conviction.
Key Facts
- The prosecutrix, a minor at the time of the incident, testified during trial that she lived with the appellant for five days during which she engaged in sexual relations with him, stating that he had accepted her as his wife.
- The appellant was sentenced to: 3 years rigorous imprisonment (RI) under Section 363 IPC, 3 years RI under Section 366(A) IPC, no sentence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, and 20 years RI under Section 6 of POCSO Act, along with fines and default stipulations.
- The appellant has been in judicial custody since his conviction, amounting to 4 years and 8 months as of the date of the application.
- The final hearing of the main appeal remains pending and is not likely to be concluded in the near future.
Procedural History
- Date of conviction and sentencing: Not specified in judgment, but implied to have occurred prior to filing of I.A. No. 5506/2026.
- First application under Section 430 BNSS: Filed and subsequently withdrawn.
- I.A. No. 5506/2026: Filed on an unspecified date, seeking suspension of custodial sentence pending appeal.
- Date of hearing: 01-07-2026.
- Date of order: 01-07-2026.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought suspension of his custodial sentence pending the final disposal of his criminal appeal, citing his prolonged incarceration and the prosecutrix’s testimony indicating a consensual relationship.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court may suspend the custodial sentence of an appellant convicted under serious sexual offences against a minor under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where the appellant has already undergone over four years of incarceration and the final appeal hearing is delayed, particularly when the prosecutrix’s testimony suggests a consensual cohabitation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecutrix’s deposition indicated a consensual relationship over five days, with the appellant treating her as his wife. This, he contended, raises a plausible ground for appeal on the issue of consent and mens rea. He further emphasized that the appellant has been in custody for 4 years and 8 months, with no prospect of the appeal being heard in the near future. He relied on the principle that prolonged incarceration without final adjudication constitutes hardship warranting interim relief.
For the Respondent/State
The State opposed the application, arguing that the gravity of the offences under POCSO and IPC, particularly involving a minor, disqualifies the appellant from interim relief. The State contended that suspension of sentence in such cases undermines public confidence in the justice system and sets a dangerous precedent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences but emphasized that the application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is not a determination of guilt or innocence, but an exercise of discretionary power to prevent undue hardship pending appeal. The Court noted that the prosecutrix’s testimony, while not exonerating the appellant, introduces a factual nuance that may be relevant on appeal.
"This Court is inclined to allow the present application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case."
The Court held that the appellant’s prolonged incarceration - over four years - combined with the delay in final hearing, constitutes sufficient grounds for interim suspension. The Court further observed that the conditions proposed (deposit of fine and personal bond with surety) ensure the appellant’s compliance with the appellate process.
The Court distinguished this from cases where suspension is denied on the basis of offence gravity alone, noting that such a rigid approach ignores the procedural fairness owed to an appellant whose appeal remains pending.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The Court allowed I.A. No. 5506/2026 and suspended the custodial part of the sentence. The suspension is subject to: (1) deposit of the fine amount imposed by the trial court; (2) furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with a solvent surety of the same amount; and (3) regular appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18.11.2026 and all subsequent dates as fixed by the Registry. The suspension remains in force until the final disposal of the appeal.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prolonged Custody Can Justify Suspension Even in Serious Offences
- Practitioners may now argue that incarceration exceeding four years without final appeal hearing constitutes a compelling ground for suspension under Section 430 BNSS, even in POCSO or rape cases.
- Courts must balance public interest with the appellant’s right to a timely appeal.
Testimony of the Victim May Influence Discretionary Relief
- Where the prosecutrix’s testimony contains elements suggesting consent, cohabitation, or lack of coercion, it may be considered as a factor in the discretionary decision to suspend sentence, even if it does not negate the offence.
- This does not equate to acquittal but may justify interim relief pending appellate review.
Procedural Conditions Are Non-Negotiable
- Suspension is conditional upon deposit of fine and personal bond with solvent surety.
- Failure to comply with appearance dates will result in immediate revocation of suspension.
