Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Anoop Son Of Kedar Prasad vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:16719]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Stay of Conviction Application
No.2581/2026
IN
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.470/2026
1. Anoop son of Shri Kedar Prasad, aged 32 years, resident of Pilodi
Police Station Manpur District Dausa (Raj.)
2. Khemchand son of Shri Chothi Ram, aged 27 years, resident of
Pilodi, Police Station Manpur District Dausa (Raj.)
---Accused/applicants
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor
—-Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Banwari Lal Saini, Advocate &
Mr. Manish Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, P.P. with
Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate
Mr. Tekchand Swami, Advocate for the
Complainant
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
Reserved on ::: 17/04/2026
Pronounced on ::: 22/04/2026
***
Instant application for stay of conviction under Section 438
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed on
behalf of the applicant No.1, namely Anoop against the impugned
judgment dt.16.02.2026 passed by the Court of ld. Special Court,
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the
Commissions For Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, Dausa, in
Sessions Case No.37/2023. By the aforesaid judgment, the accused-
applicants were acquitted for offences punishable under Section
363/511 of I.P.C. r/w Sections 11(IV)/12 & 16/17 of the POCSO Act.
They were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 366/511 &
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 01:25:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:52:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16719] (2 of 4) [CRLAS2581/2026-/]
120-B of I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo a maximum period of
three-years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine.
Learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant No.1,
namely Anoop submits that the application for suspension of sentence
filed by the applicant No.1, namely Anoop has already been allowed by
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dt.24.03.2026. Counsel
further submits that the applicant No.1 is a Tehsil Revenue Accountant
in the Office of District Collector, Karauli. Counsel also submits that in
the instant case, a Final Report, in negative form was filed against the
applicant No.1 and another accused person, namely Khemchand.
Thereafter, upon an application filed by the complainant under Section
190/193 Cr.P.C., the ld. trial Court took cognizance against the
applicants. The applicants challenged the order of cognizance by way of
filing a revision petition before this Court and this Court stayed the said
order vide order dt.02.06.2023. The said revision petition was disposed
of vide order dt.03.04.2025 and thereafter, the ld. trial Court, upon
completion of trial has acquitted the applicant from the charges of
POCSO Act and convicted him only for the offence punishable under
Sections 366/511 & 120-B I.P.C. Counsel further submits that the
applicants have falsely been implicated in the matter. The ld. trial Court
has not appreciated the facts & circumstances of the case holistically.
The applicant is a sole bread earner in the family and after long struggle
and hard work he secured the job and if the conviction against him is
not stayed, he will suffer irreparable loss. Therefore, the conviction
awarded to the applicant No.1 be stayed till the disposal of the appeal.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for
the applicant No.1, has placed reliance upon the following judgments
passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well the High Courts:- (i) Mohit
Kumar Vs. State Rajasthan, CRLA No.1798/2022 dt.02.04.2024, (ii)
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 01:25:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:52:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16719] (3 of 4) [CRLAS2581/2026-/]
Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, CRLA No.2291/2019
dt.30.07.2020, (iii) Ramjit Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, CRLA
No.2546/2023 dt.02.12.2024, (iv) Pritpal Kaur & Others Vs. State of
Punjab, CRLMA No.16307/2015 dt. 15.02.2017, (v) Navjot Singh Sidhu
Vs. State of Punjab & another, CRLA No.59/2007, dt.23.01.2007, (vi)
Rahul Gandhi Vs. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, Spl.Leave to appeal (CRL)
No.8644/2023, dt.04.08.2023, (vii) Ravikant S. Patil Vs. Sarvabhouma
S. Bagali, Appeal (Civil) No.5034/2005 dt.14.11.2006, (viii) Kavita
Chandrakant Lakhani Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2018) 6
SCC 664 and (ix) Nanka Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1991 (0) MPLJ
345 respectively.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned
counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the aforesaid
submissions and prayed for dismissal of the present application.
Heard. Perused the impugned judgment as well as the
material made available on record.
In the present case, the applicant No.1 faced the trial for
various offences and he was acquitted in all the charges, except the
charges under Sections 366/511 & 120-B of I.P.C. and he has been
sentenced to undergo a maximum period of three years rigorous
imprisonment alongwith a fine.
Furthermore, the impugned judgment passed by the ld. trial
Court has not been assailed by the State as well as the complainant by
way of filing an appeal before this Court and, hence, acquittal of the
applicant No.1 in respect of the above charges has attained finality. The
applicant No.1 is a young boy and his entire future is at stake on
account of his conviction in the present case. In case, the conviction of
the applicant No.1 is allowed to operate, it would lead to irreparable
loss, which cannot be compensated in terms of money or otherwise.
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 01:25:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:52:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16719] (4 of 4) [CRLAS2581/2026-/]
Taking note of the fact that the applicant No.1 is a
Government servant working in the Office of District Collector, Karauli
and consequences of not staying his conviction would affect his career
in service, therefore, this Court deems it just & proper to stay the
impugned judgment of conviction dt.16.02.2026 passed by the ld. trial
Court.
Consequently, the present application for stay of conviction
is allowed, qua the applicant No.1, namely Anoop. The impugned
judgment of conviction dt.16.02.2026 passed by the Court of ld. Special
Court, Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the
Commissions For Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, Dausa, in
Sessions Case No.37/2023, shall remain stayed, qua the applicant No.1,
namely Anoop, till the disposal of the present appeal.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J
ASHOK
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 01:25:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:52:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
