Sangeet Raj @ Raj Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3905 Jhar

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 426 of 2018
            Sangeet Raj @ Raj Kumar                                    ....Appellant
                                             Versus
            The State of Jharkhand                              ...           Respondent
                                      ----

            CORAM:         Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
                          Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
                                      ---
            For the Appellant         : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
            For the State             : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P
                                             ---
07/20.10.2021             Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Lukesh Kumar and

learned A.P.P, Mrs. Vandana Bharti on the prayer for suspension of sentence made by this appellant through I.A. No. 3153 of 2021.

Sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A of I.P.C and under Section 4 of POCSO Act by the impugned judgment dated 13.03.2018 passed in Special(POCSO) Case No. 120 of 2016 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge (POCSO), Dhanbad and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 363 of I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 366A of I.P.C and default sentence. He has further been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 4 of POCSO Act and default sentence by the impugned order of sentence dated 13.03.2018. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though as per the informant-father (P.W.3) the victim aged 14 years did not return after puja along with her mother and she was later on recovered from Begusarai at the appellant's house as per the statement of Investigating Officer (P.W.8), but the victim has been found to be more than 18 years of age as per radiological examination by the doctor (P.W.7), who proved the medical report (Ext.-3) after having examined her on 15th October, 2016. It is submitted that as per the statement of victim she had gone to Katras Mela along with the accused after performing puja on 9th October, 2016 along with her mother at the instance of the appellant and thereafter she was taken to Begusarai. She was got married in a Kali temple. The appellant had established physical relationship with her forcibly. She was recovered later on, on 14th October, 2016 by the police. However, it is submitted that the doctor has not found any external or internal injury on her private part and hymen was found to be torn. The call details of

the victim shows that there were several calls made on her mobile from the appellant. All these evidences show that the appellant and the victim both being major were having love affair. Appellant has remained in custody for more than 5 years since his arrest on 17th October, 2016. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence during pendency of this appeal.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that as per the case of the prosecution supported by the informant-father (P.W.3), mother (P.W.1), Fua (P.W.5), the victim was minor aged 14-15 years and she was forcibly taken away by the appellant, who had established physical relationship with her against her consent. Therefore, appellant may not be enlarged on bail.

We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the materials relied upon by them from the Lower Court Records, including the period of custody undergone by the appellant.

Having regard to the medical report (Ext.-3) which shows the victim has been found to be more than 18 years of age as per radiological examination and that the appellant has remained in custody for more than 5 years i.e., half of the sentence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant by suspending his sentence during pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, appellant, above-named, shall be released on bail, during the 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-I-cum-Spl. Judge (POCSO), Dhanbad in connection with Special(POCSO) Case No. 120 of 2016 with the condition that appellant and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile number without permission of the learned Trial Court. Appellant and their bailors shall also furnish their photo copy of Aadhar Card before the Trial Court at the time of his release.

I.A. No. 3153 of 2021 stands allowed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J) Jk/