Vishwanath Bhuiyan vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 7861 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Vishwanath Bhuiyan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 December, 2025

Author: Ambuj Nath

Bench: Ananda Sen, Ambuj Nath

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1412 of 2022
                                  ------
   Vishwanath Bhuiyan.                                ... ... Appellant
                                 Versus
   The State of Jharkhand.                         ... ... Respondent
                                  ------
              CORAM       : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

: SRI AMBUJ NATH, J.

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mahtha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P., through V.C.

------

07/ 18.12.2025 Learned Spl. P.P. appears through virtual mode. There is no complaint with regard to the clarity or quality in audio or video.

I.A. No.15119 of 2025 By filing this Interlocutory Application, the appellant made second attempt to release him on bail after suspension of sentence, during pendency of this Criminal Appeal.

2. Earlier, the application for suspension of sentence of the appellant was dismissed vide order dated 18.03.2024 passed in I.A. No.11121 of 2022.

3. The appellant has been convicted in connection with Special POCSO Case No.21 of 2021 arising out of Bermo Mahila Police Station Case No.4 of 2020, for offences under Section 376(AB) IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 30 years with fine of Rs.50,000/- for offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

4. Heard learned counsel representing the appellant and learned Spl. P.P. representing the State, and have gone through the impugned judgment and the Trial Court Records.

5. The appellant is said to have raped his niece, who was aged about 13 to 14 years. The victim has supported the allegation in her deposition before Trial Court.

6. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the age of the victim has not been properly proved by the

prosecution. However, from perusal of the statement of the Doctor namely Dr. Nirose Jojo (P.W.-9), it is apparent that the age of the victim was assessed by the Medical Board to be between 13 to 14 years.

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

8. Considering the gravity of offence, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence of this appellant and to released him on bail.

9. This interlocutory application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(AMBUJ NATH, J.)

18th December, 2025 Prashant Cp-03