Jharkhand High Court
Pintu Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 920 of 2018
Pintu Das .... 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. R.C.P. Sah, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Spl. P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Raunak Sahay, Adv.
---
08/14.06.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State, Mr. Shekhar Sinha and learned counsel for
the Informant, Mr. Raunak Sahay .
Prayer for suspension of sentence has been renewed by the appellant
through I.A. No. 2017 of 2021.
The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 306/376 of I.P.C and Section 4 of POCSO Act by the impugned judgment
dated 21st May, 2018 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2015 by the Court of learned
District & Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum, Special Judge, POCSO Act, Seraikella-
Kharsawan and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years
with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 306 of I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 376 of
I.P.C and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-
under Section 4 of POCSO Act by the impugned order of sentence.
Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed the I.A. primarily on the
ground that the appellant has completed about 6 years and 5 months of custody out of
total period of sentence of 10 years awarded under the impugned conviction. He
submits that earlier, the prayer for bail was rejected on merits on 24th January, 2019
by the Coordinate Bench of this Court presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.C.
Mishra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitav K. Gupta. He further submits that Security
Guard of Apartment (P.W.-8) has not stated anything incriminating against the
appellant, except that after hearing noise, he went to the place of occurrence and saw
that one girl had fallen on the ground from the building. He further submits that
statement of P.W.-6 that there was a fight in between the deceased and the appellant,
may not be creditworthy. However, the Hon'ble Bench earlier hearing the matter, did
not find any ground to release the appellant on bail upon consideration of the
evidence on record on merits. Since the appellant has completed more than 6 years
and 5 months, he may be enlarged on bail by suspending the sentence.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the informant
have opposed the prayer. They submit that earlier, the prayer for suspension of
sentence made by this appellant was rejected taking note of the evidence of eye
witness to the occurrence and also the evidence of the doctor that the deceased was
pregnant.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the
submission based on the materials on record and also the period of custody undergone
by the appellant.
Having regard to the fact that the appellant has undergone custody for
about 6 years and 5 months, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by
granting him the privilege of suspension of sentence. Accordingly, appellant,
above named, 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 District & Additional Sessions
Judge-I-cum, Special Judge, POCSO Act, Seraikella-Kharsawan in connection with
Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2015 with the condition that the appellant and his bailors
shall not change their address or mobile number without permission of the learned
Trial Court.
Consequently, I.A. No. 2017 of 2021 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Jk
