Jharkhand High Court
Sonu Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1891 of 2017
1. Sonu Ansari
2. Ravi Kumar --- --- Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Through: Video Conferencing
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P
---
08/12.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties on the prayer for
suspension of sentence made by the appellant no.2 through I.A.
No.3845/2021.
Both the appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 302,201 and 366(A) of the I.P.C by the impugned judgment
of conviction dated 29.08.2017 passed in G.R. No. 2999 of 2014 by the court
of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-1st cum Spl. Court for
POCSO Act, Hazaribag and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each with a default sentence each for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C; further sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 8 years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and a default sentence
each for the offence punishable under Section 366-A I.P.C and have also
been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each with
default sentence each for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C by
the impugned order of sentence dated 01.09.2017 All the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case of the
present appellant stands on exactly similar footing as that of appellant no.1
who has been enlarged on bail by suspending the sentence vide order dated 3rd
August 2021 passed by this Court also taking into account the period of
custody of 7 years. This appellant has also remained in custody for more
than 7 years by now since 26th July 2014. It is submitted that though the
prosecution case made out by P.W.2 alleges procuration of a minor girl aged
16 years for the purpose of forcing or seducing her for illicit intercourse with
another person and also causing her death and disappearance of evidence, but
it has come in the evidence that the mother of the victim had lodged a Sanha
at 1.00 P.M. and P.W.2 informant had accompanied her in which there was no
mention of any of the accused persons having abducted her on the night of
21st July, 2014. It is submitted that the medical report adduced by the P.W.9,
10 and 11, Doctors have found death caused by asphyxia due to drowning and
there was no injury on the private part of the victim, neither was any sperm
found in the vaginal smear. Taking into account the circumstances and the
period of custody, this Court had been pleased to allow the prayer for bail of
the appellant no.1. Therefore, on similar grounds this appellant may also be
enlarged on bail by suspending the sentence.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. However, he is not in a
position to distinguish the case of this appellant from appellant no.1.
It appears that upon consideration of the materials on record and
the submissions of the parties on the prayer for suspension of sentence of
appellant no.1, this Court vide order dated 3rd August 2021 observed as under:
"On consideration of the materials on record and submissions
of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that mother of the
victim P.W.1 Anju Devi did not make any mention of the
incidence on the night of 21.07.2014 or the name of the
appellant no.1 while lodging a sanha at 1.00 p.m., which was
instituted as Case Diary No. 77 of 2014 as affirmed by the
Investigating Officer, P.W.7 Niraj Kumar at para 1 and para 27
of his deposition. However, after the dead body was found at
about 3.00 p.m. on the same day, the F.I.R was lodged alleging
the involvement of the accused persons. Appellant no.1 has
remained in custody for 7 years till date. As such, taking into
account all these facts and circumstances, we are inclined to
grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant
no.1."
Accordingly, the appellant, being similarly situated as that of
appellant no.1 Sonu Ansari, deserves to be enlarged on bail by suspending his
sentence during pendency of this appeal. Appellant is directed to be released
on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge-1st cum Spl. Court for POCSO Act, Hazaribag in
connection with G.R. No. 2999 of 2014 with the condition that the appellant
as well as his bailors shall not change their addresses and mobile numbers, if
any, without prior permission of the learned trial court. I.A. No.3845 of 2021
stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Shamim/
