Udai Gagarai vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 982 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 75 of 2020

         Udai Gagarai                                           ---   ---   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. Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                For the State            : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
                                             ---

08/28.02.2023         Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P. on

the renewed prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant made through I.A. No.9703 of 2022.

2. Sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(i & n) of the I.P.C. and Section 6 of the POCSO Act vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.08.2019 rendered in G.R. (POCSO) No.2414 of 2017 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge- V cum Special Judge (POCSO), Jamshedpur and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.25,000/- u/s 376(2)(i & n) of the I.P.C. read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and a default sentence vide impugned order of sentence dated 22.08.2019.

Earlier the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant was rejected vide order dated 16th December 2021 on merits after going through the lower court records and the fact for the appellant has remained in custody for about 4 years and 2½ months only since 1st September 2017 against the sentence of imprisonment for life.

Learned counsel for the appellant has once again invited the attention of this Court to the merits of the findings rendered by the learned trial court. He also submits that the appellant has now remained in custody for about 5 years and 6 months. As such, he may be enlarged on bail.

Learned Spl.P.P. has opposed the prayer.

On consideration of the renewed prayer for suspension of sentence and the materials relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, we are not inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant during pendency of the appeal as no new grounds have been

made out and the appellant has undergone custody of only 5 years and 6 months approximately against the sentence of life imprisonment. As such, prayer is rejected. I.A. No.9703 of 2022 stands disposed of.

Let the name of Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. be reflected in the cause list henceforth.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Shamim/