Jeevan Baraik Aged About 22 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 9085 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Jeevan Baraik Aged About 22 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 September, 2024

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen, Gautam Kumar Choudhary

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.388 of 2024
                                     -----
           1.Jeevan Baraik aged about 22 years, son of Jaleshwar Baraik,
           resident of village Balsota Sarnatoli, PO Balsota, PS Bhandar, District
           Lohardaga, Jharkhand
           2.Praveen Oraon, aged about 22 years, son of Kishun Oraon, resident
           of village Balsota Sarnatoli, PO Balsota, PS Bhandra, District
           Lohardaga, Jharkhand                                ... Appellant(s).
                                     Versus
           The State of Jharkhand                              ... Respondent(s).
                                     With
                        Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.2157 of 2023
                                                   -----
           Sanjay Oraon                                   ... Appellant(s).
                                     Versus
           The State of Jharkhand                              ... Respondent(s).
                                     With
                        Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.2173 of 2023
                                             -----
           Silbahan Mahto @ Shil Bahan Mahto @ Shiv Bahan Mahto @ Gudda
           Mahto                                               ... Appellant(s).
                                     Versus
           The State of Jharkhand                              ... Respondent(s).
                                     ......
           CORAM        :      SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

------

For the Appellant(s) : Mr Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, APP .........

06 /09.09.2024: I.A. No.8436 of 2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 388 of 2024 This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant no. 2, namely Praveen Oraon, praying therein to suspend the sentence and release him on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

2. This appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376(DA), 323 and 379 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under section 6 of the POCSO Act along with other sentences for other offences.

3. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State and have gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence and the Trial Court Records.

4. Opportunity was given to the State to oppose the bail, which the State availed and opposed.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant no. 2, namely, Praveen Oraon submits that one of the co-accused, namely, Sanjay Oraon in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 2157 of 2023 has been granted bail. He submits that though this appellant is not named in the FIR yet in the evidence victim stated that when she has been raped by those persons, six more persons came and also raped.

6. After hearing the parties, we find that this appellant is amongst those six persons who came later on and committed rape. Sanjay Oraon has been granted bail by us on the ground that in the cross examination the victim has stated that Sanjay Oraon is her friend and has not committed any wrong with her. So far as this appellant is concerned she identified this appellant as one of the person who was there and further the forensic report suggests that this appellant was involved in the occurrence as semen found on the wearing apparels of the girl matched with the semen which was found in the pant of this appellant.

7. Considering the aforesaid, we find that the case of the appellant does not stand on the similar footing of that of Sanjay Oraon which has been enlarged on bail.

8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 8436 of 2024 is dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Tanuj/-