Om Prakash Arya vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3041 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                   I.A. No.3111 of 2021
                                            In
                             Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.80 of 2021
                                        ---

           Om Prakash Arya                            ...           ...      Appellant
                                      Versus
           The State of Jharkhand                     ...           ...      Respondent
                                        ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---

For the Appellant : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Adv.

           For the State                 : Mr. Saket Kumar, 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.3111 of 2021

03/23.08.2021: 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 Section 10 of the POCSO Act read with Sections 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction dated 05.01.2021 and has been sentenced vide order dated 20.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge POCSO Cases, Chatra in POCSO Case No.19 of 2018 arising out of Simariya P.S. Case No.23 of 2018, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of seven years with fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act read with section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and in default thereof, further undergo simple imprisonment of six months.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been remained in custody for more than three years. On the above facts, prayer for the suspension of sentence has been made.

4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

5. From perusal of records, it appears that it has been alleged therein that the victim who is minor, has been sexually assaulted by the hostel in-charge (the appellant). The victim-girl has supported the allegation and there is ample evidence against the convict. Thus, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. In the result, I.A. No.3111 of 2021 is, hereby, rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Amar/-