Jharkhand High Court
Kamal Deo @ Kamal Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No.6595 of 2020
In
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.727 of 2020
---
Kamal Deo @ Kamal Kumar ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Madhav Prasad, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.
---
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel
for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and
video qualities are good.
---
I.A. No.6595 of 2020
03/02.08.2021: This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the
appellant under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for
suspension of sentence and release him on bail, during pendency of the
instant appeal.
2. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections
376 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 4 of the POCSO
Act vide judgment of conviction dated 03.07.2020 and sentenced vide
order of sentence dated 08.07.2020 passed by the learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children), Dhanbad in
connection with Dhanbad Mahila P.S. Case No.03 of 2017 (G.R. Case
No.4123 of 2017), whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment of seven (07) years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for
the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months.
Further, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five
(05) years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 366 of
the Indian Penal Code, and in default thereof, to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for one month. However, no separate sentence has been
awarded for the offence u/s 4 of the POCSO Act.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the appellant is in custody since 03.07.2020. As per the allegation,
both the victim and the appellant are minor and they got married against
the desire of their parents. The Medical Board has assessed the age of the
victim-girl as 18 years. Although, the certificates suggest that she is a
minor. It has further been submitted that the appellant has been charged
under Section 366A but has been convicted under Section 366 which is
not permissible in the provision of law. On the above facts, the prayer for
bail has been made.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
5. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the age of the parties, I am inclined to suspend the sentence
of the appellant and enlarge him on bail on his furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned District & Additional Sessions
Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children), Dhanbad in connection with
Dhanbad Mahila P.S. Case No.03 of 2017 (G.R. Case No.4123 of 2017),
subject to the condition that the appellant will submit self-attested
photocopy of his Aadhar Card and also submit his mobile number before
the learned court below which he will always keep active and will not
change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the
court.
6. In the result, I.A. No.6595 of 2020 is, hereby, allowed.
7. The appellant shall remain present before the Court, when the
appeal is taken up for hearing, failing which his bail shall be cancelled.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
