Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Bhuiyan @ Rajesh Kumar Bhuiyan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 October, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 188 of 2024
Rajesh Bhuiyan @ Rajesh Kumar Bhuiyan, aged about 31 years, S/o Sri
Krishna Bhuiyan, R/o Village + P.O. Tiwari Marhatiya, P.S. + Dist. Garhwa
(Jharkhand) ... Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
-----
06/15.10.2024 I.A. No. 4826 of 2024
Heard Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State.
2. This appeal has already been admitted and the Trial Court Record is
on the record.
3. I.A. No. 4826 of 2024 has been filed for grant of bail and suspension
of sentence, during pendency of the present criminal appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
appellant has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 30.01.2024 and 12.02.2024 respectively in
POCSO Case No.04 of 2023, arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No.598 of 2022
passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Garhwa and he has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section
354 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has been further directed
to undergo S.I. for 4 months, he has been further sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 354A of IPC and in
default of payment of fine, he has been further directed to undergo S.I. for
4 months, he has also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and fine
of Rs.25,000/- under Section 354B of IPC and in default of payment of fine,
he has been further directed to undergo S.I. for 1 year and he has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years under Section 506 of IPC and
direction was there that all the sentences shall run concurrently. He submits
that the appellant has remained in custody for 1 year and 11 months and
that has been disclosed in paragraph 22 of the memo of the appeal. He
further submits that the doctor, who has treated the victim, he was not
examined. He then submits that there is no eye witness. He also submits
that there is land dispute between the parties and in view of that falsely the
case has been registered.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer on the
ground that even half of the sentence has not been completed by the
appellant.
6. Considering that the appellant is in custody for 1 year and 11 months
and there is no eye witness and the doctor, who has treated the victim, has
not been examined and there is no injury report on the record, during the
pendency of the present criminal appeal, I am inclined to enlarge the
appellant on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Garhwa in connection with POCSO
Case No.04 of 2023, arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No.598 of 2022.
7. Accordingly, I.A. No.4826 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
