Jharkhand High Court
Raj Kumar Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 740 of 2018
Raj Kumar Pandit, S/o Hulash Pandit, resident of village Bekobar, PO
Bekobar, PS Koderma, District Koderma, State Jharkhand .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Appellant : Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, Spl. PP
---------------
Order No. 08/ Dated: 12th December 2022
I.A. No. 3388 of 2022
This application has been assigned to DB-III by an order dated
09th June 2022 passed on administrative side by Hon'ble the Chief Justice,
High Court of Jharkhand.
2. This is second attempt by the appellant seeking suspension of
sentence awarded to him in Spl. (POCSO) Case No. 8 of 2016.
3. The appellant's first application under section 389(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, CrPC) vide I.A. No. 5791 of 2018 has
been dismissed by an order dated 03rd December 2018, in the following
terms:
"Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the State on the interlocutory application filed by the
appellant for granting bail during the pendency of the appeal.
The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the
offence under Sections 4 of the POCSO Act.
There is direct and specific allegation against the appellant
to have committed rape upon the victim minor girl.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not
inclined to release the appellant on bail. Accordingly, prayer for
bail stands rejected.
The aforesaid interlocutory application stands dismissed."
4. In Spl. (POCSO) Case No. 8 of 2016, the appellant has been
convicted and sentenced to RI for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- under
section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in
short, POCSO Act).
5. Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant
submits that it has come on record through the defence witness who is none
else but own sister-in-law of the victim that on account of enmity the
appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that no evidence of recent sexual activity was observed on the
person of the victim by the doctor who clinically examined her on 19 th April
2016.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has further referred to the
evidence of Investigating Officer to submit that the prosecution case on its
important aspects has not been proved in course of the trial.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid submission, Mrs. Rashmi Kumar,
the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant who is
in judicial custody since 08th June 2016 deserves suspension of sentence
during pendency of the Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 740 of 2018.
8. Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, the learned Spl. PP has opposed the
prayer for suspension of sentence made on behalf of the appellant.
9. It is submitted that the doctor has found that the victim girl was
of 15 to 16 years of age. The learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I
cum Special Court (POCSO Act), Koderma has discussed various aspects of
the case and relied on several judgments while awarding sentence of RI for
life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- to the appellant.
10. Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, the learned Spl.PP has further referred to
the judgment in "Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav
and Another" (2004) 7 SCC 528 to submit that a subsequent bail application
after dismissal of the earlier one on merits is normally not entertained except
in exceptional cases.
11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the
case, I.A. No. 3388 of 2022 is dismissed.
12. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned
through FAX.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Tanuj/-
