Jharkhand High Court
Mukesh Kunwar @ Mukesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No. 9304 of 2019
in
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1004 of 2019
...
Mukesh Kunwar @ Mukesh Kumar .... Appellant
-V e r s u s-
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
...
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
...
For the Appellant : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. S. K. Burnwal APP
...
I.A. No. 9304 of 2019
...
07/25.02.2021
1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389
(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the sentence
and grant of ad-interim bail to the appellant, during the pendency of
the appeal.
2. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.07.2019
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-F.T.C.
Offences Against Women, Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 172 of 2015,
whereby the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the
offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- in
default, thereof, to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 1 year.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is
undue delay in lodging the first information report, as it would be
evident from the recital in the F.I.R. that the occurrence had taken
place on 'Mahashivratri', whereas, the F.I.R. was lodged after two
months in April, 2015. Learned counsel has relied upon a decision of
the Madras High Court and of the Supreme Court and submitted that
in similar circumstances, wherein, the parties had sexual relationship
on the pretext of marriage, the F.I.R. was quashed.
4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed and submitted that the victim has
been examined as P.W. 4. She has deposed that the appellant had
sexual relationship with her on the promise that he would marry her,
but, subsequently, he resiled and refused to marry, hence, the consent
to such sexual intercourse was on misconception of fact. It is
submitted that the D.N.A. test for determining the paternity of the girl
born to Asha Kumari (P.W.4) was done and as per the report, the
appellant was found to be the biological father of the child.
5. Heard. Considering the statement of the victim and the D.N.A.
report, at this stage, the prayer for suspension of sentence and
enlarging the appellant on bail is, hereby, declined.
6. In the result, I.A. No. 9304 of 2019 stands rejected.
...
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1004 of 2019
...
1. Office to list the appeal under the heading 'For hearing' in July,
2021.
2. If the appeal is not taken up for hearing by July, 2021, the
appellant is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)
APK
