Jharkhand High Court
Bittu Behra @ Rakesh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1279 of 2023
-----
Bittu Behra @ Rakesh, aged about 33 yrs. s/o Pradeep Behra, R/o
Village-Surta, P.O & P.S-Jhadadih, Distt.-Mayurbhanj, State-Odisha
...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Alpana Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Satish Prasad, APP
------
th
Order No.11/Dated:4 August, 2025
I.A. No. 6245 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430 of
the BNSS, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with
the judgment of conviction dated 21.04.2022 and order of sentence dated
30.04.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge POCSO Act, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with Special POCSO Case No.36
of 2019 arising out of Toklo PS Case No.10 of 2019, whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Section 363/34, 376
(2) (n) of the IPC and section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for four years with a fine of Rs.5000/- under section 363/34
of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo
SI for three months. He has also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 12
years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further
directed to undergo SI for six months and all the sentences shall run
concurrently.
2. At the outset, it needs to mention here that earlier the prayer for
suspension of sentence of the appellant/applicant has been rejected by a
coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.03.2024 passed in I.A
No.11648 of 2023.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the
applicant/appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. The
sole ground taken for suspension of sentence of the applicant/appellant is
that he has already remained in judicial custody for about 6 years and, as
such, he has completed half of the sentences awarded to him as he has
been in judicial custody since 09.08.2019.
4. It needs to refer herein that vide order dated 15.07.2025 the custody
report of the appellant/applicant has been called for by this Court which
has been kept on the record at Flag-'X'.
5. While, on the other hand, Mr. Satish Prasad, learned APP appearing for
the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer
for suspension of sentence and submitted that earlier a coordinate Bench
of this Court has rejected the prayer of suspension of sentence of the
appellant, but he has fair enough to submit that as per custody report, the
appellant/applicant has completed about half of the sentence awarded to
him.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as
also the custody report.
7. We have perused the custody report and it appears that the
applicant/appellant has remained in judicial custody for about 5 years 11
months 20 days without remission and with remission he has remained in
judicial custody for about 6 years 10 months 08 days.
8. The sole ground taken on behalf of the applicant is that the
appellant/applicant has completed half of sentence awarded to him.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the
appellant/applicant has been able to make out a case for suspension of
sentence during pendency of this appeal in view of the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Saudan Singh V. The State
of Uttar Pradesh" reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259.
10. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6245 of 2025 stands allowed.
11. In consequence thereof, the applicant, named above, is directed to be
released on bail, during pendency of the appeal, 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, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with Special POCSO
Case No.36 of 2019 arising out of Toklo PS Case No.10 of 2019.
12. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice
the case on merit, since, the criminal appeal is lying pending before this
Court for its consideration.
13. In view thereof, I.A. No. 6245 of 2025 stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Sudhir
