Jharkhand High Court
Raj Kumar Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.740 of 2018
-----
Raj Kumar Pandit, S/o Hulash Pandit, aged about 26 years, R/o Village-
Bekobar, PO-Bekobar & PS-Koderma, District-Koderma, State-
Jharkhand ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.PP
------
nd
Order No.19/Dated: 2 April, 2025
I.A. No. 979 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of
sentence provisionally in connection with the judgment of conviction
dated 09.05.2018 and order of sentence dated 15.05.2018 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Court (POCSO Act),
Koderma in connection with Spl. (POCSO) Case No.8 of 2016, whereby
and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under section 4 of the
POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.20,000/- for the offence under section 4 of POCSO Act and in default
of payment of fine, further directed to undergo SI for one year.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the prayer for
suspension of sentence of the appellant has been dealt with by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.12.2018 while
considering the interlocutory application being I.A No.5791 of 2018
which was rejected.
3. Another interlocutory application being I.A No.3388 of 2022 was filed
seeking therein prayer for suspension of sentence but the same was also
rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.12.2022.
4. The third attempt has been made by the appellant for suspension of his
sentence provisionally by filing another interlocutory application being
I.A No.68 of 2024 for better treatment of his son who sustained burn injury
which was allowed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
24.01.2024.
5. Again, another interlocutory application being I.A. No.1816 of 2024 has
been filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence provisionally which
was allowed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
21.02.2024.
6. The appellant by way of filing interlocutory application being I.A
No.11091 of 2024 has moved before this Court for suspension of sentence
which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.11.2024.
7. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that even for filing the
instant interlocutory application being I.A No.979 of 2025 on the advise
of the doctor who has advised the better treatment of his son who sustained
burn injury.
8. It has been contended that the photographs are appended in the instant
interlocutory application by way of supplementary affidavit for the
purpose of demonstrating that due to shrinking of the skin his son who is
aged about 11 years is not in a position to stand on his own legs and, as
such, the doctor has advised for grafting and advanced surgery.
9. It has been contended that the said photographs have also been appended
by filing supplementary affidavit.
10. It has also been submitted that the appellant is the sole adult member in
the family whose presence is required for the better treatment of his ailing
son so that his future may be saved.
11. The submission, therefore, has been made that the instant interlocutory
application may be allowed for the aforesaid purpose.
12. The response to the instant interlocutory application has been filed by the
State sworn by the Inspector of Police, Koderma filed on 19.02.2025.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the son of
the appellant has sustained burn injury and he has been admitted for better
treatment in Devkamal Hospital, Bajra since 13.01.2024 and as per the
report of the doctor produced by the family members, he has sustained
42% burn injury. As per the report dated 28.05.2024 all wounds of the
injured son are reported to be healed and the doctor has suggested to clean
the body with soap and water, massage coconut oil and suggested
physiotherapy etc.
14. The learned State counsel, therefore, has submitted that as per the
discharge summary of Devkamal Hospital and Research Centre, Ranchi
the injured son has been treated properly.
15. The learned Spl.PP appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand based
upon the aforesaid grounds has opposed the prayer for suspension of
sentence provisionally.
16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
prayer made in the instant interlocutory application as also the affidavit in
objection filed by the State.
17. The instant interlocutory applicant has been filed for suspension of
sentence provisionally for the purpose of providing better treatment to the
son of the appellant who has sustained burn injury in legs. The fact about
the burn injury is evident from the photographs as appended in the second
supplementary affidavit dated 21.03.2025 wherein the position of the burn
skin having in the legs of the son of the appellant is visible.
18. The averment has been made in the instant interlocutory application that
grafting and advance surgery are required due to shrinking of the skin. The
fact about sustaining the burn injury has not been disputed by the State.
However, it has been stated in the affidavit in objection filed by the State
that the burn injury is to the extent of 42% has been treated properly.
19. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for treatment of the
son of the appellant for post effect of the burn injury. On earlier occasion,
a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the prayer for provisional
bail of the appellant as would be evident from the order dated 24.01.2024
passed in I.A No.68 of 2024 and subsequent thereto vide order dated
21.02.2024 passed in I.A No.1816 of 2024.
20. This Court considering the fact of having better treatment of the son of the
appellant is now considering the prayer made in the instant interlocutory
application.
21. We have conscious with the issue of nature of allegation as has been said
to be committed by the present appellant. The son of the appellant who
has sustained burn injury is not in dispute, rather the fact about the burn
injury of the son of the appellant was earlier considered by a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court while granting bail to the appellant by provisionally
suspended the sentence vide order dated 24.01.2024 passed in I.A No.68
of 2024.
22. The question of better treatment of the appellant's son is required to be
considered who is aged about 10-11 years.
23. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the instant
interlocutory application being I.A No.979 of 2025 is being allowed by
suspending the sentence provisionally.
24. In view of the discussions made above, the appellant, named above, is
directed to be released on bail provisionally, from the date of his release
till 29.04.2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Court (POCSO
Act), Koderma in connection with Spl. (POCSO) Case No.8 of 2016.
25. The appellant is directed to surrender in the Court of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Court (POCSO Act), Koderma
on 30.04.2025 and thereafter file a surrender certificate before this Court
by way of affidavit on or before the next date of hearing.
26. Accordingly, I.A. No. 979 of 2025 stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
27. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned immediately
through 'Fax'.
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.740 of 2018
28. Let this case be listed on 06.05.2025 for filing surrender certificate by
the appellant.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sudhir
