Jharkhand High Court
Patra @ Pran Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 August, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.2200 of 2023
------
Patra @ Pran Munda, S/o Late Fagu Munda, R/o Village Indrapuri
Kathal Gonda, P.O., G.P.O., P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand. ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... Respondent
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
: SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Ayush Hora, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
------
08/ 06.08.2025
I.A. No.3627 of 2025
This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the
appellant praying therein to suspend the sentence and release him
on bail during pendency of this appeal.
2. It is the second attempt of the appellant praying to
release him on bail after suspension of sentence. Earlier his
application for suspension of sentence was dismissed vide order
dated 22.07.2024 passed in I.A. No.1869 of 2024.
3. The appellant has been convicted in connection with
POCSO Case No.81 of 2020 in the Court of learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-IV-cum-Special Judge POCSO, Ranchi, for offence
under Section 376(D) IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for 20 years, with fine of Rs.15,000/-.
4. Heard, learned counsel representing the appellant and
learned Spl. P.P. representing the State and have gone through the
impugned judgment, the evidence and the Trial Court Records.
5. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that
the appellant has remained in custody for five years and there is no
likelihood of this appeal to be taken up in near future.
6. Learned Spl. P.P. representing the State opposes the
prayer for suspension of sentence and submits that the sentence is
of twenty years and the appellant has remained in custody only for
a period of five years. He submits that from the evidence of the
victim, the Doctor and also the FSL report, this is a foolproof case
which suggests that this appellant is guilty for commission of the
offence, for which he has been convicted. He submits that at the time
of suspension of sentence, the Court should see the gravity of offence
and the weight of the evidence and if it is felt that there is least
chance of acquittal, the bail should not be granted.
7. After hearing the parties and after going through the
records, we find that the Doctor has opined that sexual assault
cannot be ruled out.
The victim girl (P.W.-2), has narrated the fact and has
supported the fact of commission of rape upon her by this appellant.
The FSL report is corroboration of the fact that the
appellant is involved in commission of the offence.
8. Thus, we are not inclined to release this appellant on bail
after suspending the sentence. He should serve the remaining
sentence.
9. This interlocutory application is, accordingly, dismissed
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Prashant. Cp-3
