Jharkhand High Court
Raj Kumar Ganjhu @ Raj Kumar Bhokta ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 28 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 386 of 2019
Raj Kumar Ganjhu @ Raj Kumar Bhokta @ Raj Kumar Bhogta
....Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
---
For the Appellant : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P
---
08/28.07.2022 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State on the prayer for suspension of sentence made
on behalf of this appellant through I.A. (Cr.) No. 2373 of 2022.
This appellant along with three co-accused stand convicted for the
offences punishable under sections 376(2) (n) and 354(A) of Indian Penal Code
and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act vide impugned judgment of conviction
dated 06.03.2019 passed in Special POCSO Case No.1683/2014 by the court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh and they have been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs 4,000/- and
default sentence under Section 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code vide impugned
order of sentence dated 11.03.2019. However, no separate sentence has been
awarded under section 354(A) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of
POCSO Act.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that earlier prayer for
suspension of sentence of this appellant was dismissed as not pressed vide
order dated 17.08.2021. However, the other three co-convicts, namely, Dinesh
Ganjhu @ Dinesh Bhogta, Mangra Bhokta and Jugal Gawar @ Ritlal Yadav
have been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 13.04.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.965 of 2019 and order
dated 18.04.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.459 of 2019 and
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.368 of 2019 on consideration of same and similar
materials. It is submitted that the appellant has remained in custody since
17.09.2017 i.e., about one and a half months less than five years. It is further
submitted that P.W.6 the brother of the victim, P.W.2 sister of victim and her
husband P.W.3 also have turned hostile. The entire prosecution has been
launched on the basis of a complaint which was later on registered as an F.I.R.
Therefore, since the case of the appellant is not distinguishable from rest of the
convicts who have been granted bail, the appellant may also be enlarged on bail
by suspending his sentence.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer.
On consideration of rival submissions of the parties and the materials
placed from the records and the fact that the co-convicts, namely, Dinesh
Ganjhu @ Dinesh Bhogta, Mangra Bhokta and Jugal Gawar @ Ritlal Yadav,
have been enlarged on bail by suspending their sentence and the appellant has
remained in custody for about four years and ten and a half months by now, we
are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by granting him the privilege of
suspension of sentence. Accordingly, appellant, named above, 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 1st Ramgarh in connection
with Special POCSO Case No. 1683/2014 arising out of Complaint Case No.
97/2014 subsequently as Gola P.S. Case No. 63/2014 with the condition that the
appellant and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile number
without permission of the learned Trial Court and they shall also furnish their
Aadhar Card before the learned Trial Court at the time of his release.
Consequently, I.A. (Cr.) No. 2373 of 2022 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Saurav/Mukul
