Jharkhand High Court
Dilshad Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 991 of 2018
Dilshad Khan ............Appellant
Vrs.
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Malti Devi ......... Respondents
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Sudhanshu Kr. Deo, Advocate
05/21.11.2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.P.P. and learned
counsel for the informant on the prayer for suspension of sentence of the
appellant made through I.A. No. 5339 of 2021.
Sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. However, he has
been acquitted of the charge under Section 3(i)(r) & 3(i)(s) of the
S.C./S.T. Act by the impugned judgment of conviction dated 03.08.2018
passed in POCSO Case No. 52 of 2017 by the court of learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Deoghar and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs.25,000/- and a
default sentence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act in view of Section 42
of the POCSO Act by the impugned order of sentence dated 09.08.2018.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim's
statement has been recorded as P.W.2; medical report has also been
brought on record as Ext.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
it could not be ascertained whether the blood mixed with semen found on
the part of the undergarment of the victim is of the appellant. Though it
has been mentioned in the impugned judgment that blood mixed with
semen was found, but whether the blood is of the appellant has not been
proved. Appellant has remained in custody since 08.11.2017 and he has
completed half of the custody against the sentence of 10 years awarded by
the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that appeal has not been
listed for hearing, as such, appellant may be enlarged on bail by
suspending his sentence.
Learned counsel for the State Mrs. Lily Sahay as well as learned
counsel for the informant Mr. Sudhanshu Kr. Deo opposed the prayer for
bail. They have submitted that the appellant has committed a heinous
crime in the society.
On consideration of the submission of learned counsel for the
parties and the materials placed on record and also the fact that appellant
has undergone half of the custody; he has never misused the privilege of
bail and the fact that appeal has not been listed under the heading for
'hearing', we are inclined the enlarge the appellant on bail by suspending
his sentence during pendency of the appeal.
Accordingly, appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail on his
furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Deoghar in connection
with POCSO Case No. 52 of 2017, subject to the conditions that one of
the bailor should be deponent of the interlocutory application namely
Nausad Khan S/o Jafir Khan, R/o Village Rajdaha P.O. and P.S.
Madhupur, District Deoghar and other should be close relative; appellant
as well as his bailors shall not change their residential addresses and
mobile numbers, if any, without prior permission of the learned trial Court
and shall submit Aadhar Cards at the time of his release. I.A. No. 5339 of
2021 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
A.Mohanty
