Jharkhand High Court
Om Prakash Bhuiyan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 108 of 2025
------
Om Prakash Bhuiyan, S/o Bechan Bhuiyan, aged about 22 years,
R/o Village-Godapochi, P.O & P.S.- Satbarwa, District-Palamu
......Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ......Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Altamash Khan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. V. S Sahay, A.P.P
Order No: 07/ Dated: 09.04.2025
This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellant by challenging the Judgment of conviction and
04.09.2024 and sentence dated 05.09.2024 passed by Sri. Akhilesh
Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Judge
POCSO, Lohardaga in Spl. POCSO No. 48 of 2022 by which the
appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 363,
366-A and 354-A of the I.P.C and Section 8 of the POCSO Act
and sentenced to undergo R.I for five (05) years, R.I for five (05)
years and R.I for five (05) years respectively under Section 363,
366-A and Section 8 of the POCSO Act and to pay the fine of
Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively under
Section 363, 366-A and Section 8 of the POCSO Act and no
separate sentence was inflicted for the offence under Section 354-
A of I.P.C in view of Section 42 of POCSO Act.
2. I.A No. 879 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for condoning the delay of three (3) days in filing this
instant Criminal Appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that due
to financial crunch, the appellant could not file the appeal in time
and hence, the delay of (03) days in filing this instant Criminal
Appeal may be condoned.
4. Learned A.P.P raised no objection.
5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and in
view of the averments made in I.A No. 879 of 2025, the delay of
three (3) days in filing this instant instant Criminal Appeal is,
hereby, condoned.
6. Thus, I.A No. 879 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.
7. I.A No. 2053 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
appellant for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail during
pendency of this instant Criminal Appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court
below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It
is submitted that allegations of abducting and committing any
physical abuse against the appellant are false and concocted. It is
submitted that the victim girl also used to work in the brick kiln
where the appellant was working and both were acquainted with
each other and were having love affairs. It is submitted that the
victim girl on her own had gone the house of the appellant in the
Tempo which was not liked by her parents.
It is submitted that the Doctor has opined that the girl is
aged around 17 to 18 years. It is further submitted that the
appellant is in custody since 06.07.2022 i.e. for around two (02)
years and nine (09) months and has completed more than half of
his sentence and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant had
abducted the victim girl i.e. the daughter of the informant and had
outraged her modesty and touched her private parts also. It is
submitted that the victim girl is aged around 15 years. It is
submitted that the victim girl during her statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C and even during her evidence has supported the
prosecution case and hence, the prayer for bail may be rejected.
10. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the
Trial Court Records and considered the submissions of both the
sides.
11. It appears that the father of the victim girl i.e. the
informant had lodged the F.I.R against the appellant for abducting
his daughter and has disclosed the mobile number of the victim
girl as well as mobile number of the appellant in the F.I.R and
which reveals that the father of the victim girl was also acquainted
with the appellant.
12. It also appears from the evidence of PW-2 that the victim
girl used to work in the Brick kiln with the appellant and she had
also gone with the appellant on her own by the Tempo. However,
she alleged that the appellant has outraged her modesty.
13. It appears that the appellant is in custody since
06.07.2022.
14. Considering the custody of the appellant and also
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant
namely Om Prakash Bhuiyan is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of Sri. Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari,
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Judge POCSO,
Lohardaga/or his successor Court in Spl. POCSO No. 48 of 2022
subject to the condition that one of the bailer must be the own
relative of the appellant.
15. Thus, I.A No. 2053 of 2025 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 108 of 2025
16. Admit.
17. Issue notice to the informant.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Avinash/
