Hamid Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2408 Jhar

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 613 of 2020

             Hamid Ansari                                    ---          ---    Appellant
                                               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 Appellant:       Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate
              For the Respondent:      Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P
                                         ---
05 / 19.07.2021      Heard learned counsel for the Appellant Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava and

learned A.P.P Mr. Saket Kumar on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 3078/2021.

2. The sole Appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable under sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment dated 25.02.2020 passed in Session Trial No. 242/2017 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Garhwa and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and default sentence under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and default sentence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, by the impugned order of sentence dated 29.02.2020.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the victim has herself stated during trial that she was aged about 20 years, as per the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court at paragraph-9. The grandmother of the victim has also deposed that the victim was about 18 years of age. Therefore, case under section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code has not been proved. It is further submitted that the victim, in her cross-examination, has stated that she was having love affair with the present accused for about four months. As per the case of the prosecution, she had gone missing on 27.04.2016 i.e. the date of her marriage, but there are no eyewitness to the occurrence except the testimony of the victim girl. She has also stated in her cross-examination that while being taken from Daltonganj to Delhi on a train, she did not narrate the incidence to anybody. The Medical Officer (PW-5) who examined her, on radiological examination, though found her to be between 16-18 years of age, but the learned Trial Court has accepted the prosecution version that she was a major. The doctor has opined that there is no proof of recent sexual intercourse. It is submitted that brother of the Informant (PW-1) has turned hostile so has PW-4.

Appellant is in custody since 30.03.2017. As such, he may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence.

4. Learned AP.P has opposed the prayer. He submits that the testimony of the victim (PW-3) goes to show that she was abducted by the appellant who was a married man and she was confined for about three months in Delhi and subjected to forcible sexual intercourse which is corroborated by the medical report adduced by the doctor (PW-5). Therefore, appellant does not deserve bail.

5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the materials relied upon by them from the lower court records as also the period of custody undergone by the appellant till date. It appears that the victim went missing on the date of her marriage, though no one in the family saw her disappearing, rather the victim (PW-3) in her cross- examination, has stated that she was having love affair with the accused for four months. As per the case of the prosecution, accepted by the learned Trial Court, she was a major. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, we are inclined to enlarge the Appellant on bail by suspending his sentence during pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant- Hamid Ansari shall be released on bail, during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 242/2017 with the condition that he and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile nos. without permission of the learned Trial Court. I.A. No. 3078/2021 stands disposed of.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J) Ranjeet/