Shashi Prakash Digwar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3576 Jhar

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                I.A. No. 4796 of 2021
                                          AND
                                I.A. NO. 5888 of 2020
                                          In
                       Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 993 of 2018
                                         ...

Shashi Prakash Digwar ....... Appellant(s).

Versus The State of Jharkhand. ....... Respondent.

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Through: Video Conferencing.

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.

I.A. No. 5888 of 2020

09/23.9.2021 Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this interlocutory application.

Permission, as sought for, is accorded. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.

I.A. No. 4796 of 2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. By way of filing this interlocutory application, appellant has renewed his prayer to suspend the sentence and release him on bail, during pendency of this appeal.

Earlier the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected. In this appeal, the appellant has been convicted for committing the offence under Section 376 I.P.C and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in which, it has been observed that if sexual harassment on the pretext of marriage has taken place, Section 376 IPC will not be applicable. He further submits that the appellant is in custody for more than 3 years and the victim was major.

So far as the point, argued by counsel for the appellant as to whether Section 376 IPC is applicable in this case or not, the same will be considered at the time of final hearing of this appeal. No concrete finding should be arrived at this stage, as this application has been filed for bail of the appellant.

We find that the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and the appellant has not even completed half of his sentence.

Considering the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to release the appellant on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant, named above, is hereby, rejected.

However, the appellant is at liberty to pray for early hearing of this appeal before regular Bench. The appellant is also at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completing half of the sentence.

Accordingly, this interlocutory application is dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.) Anu/-c.p.3