Jharkhand High Court
Sonu Mansuri vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 February, 2025
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 324 of 2024
Sonu Mansuri, aged about 32 years, son of Late Samin Mansuri @ Md.
Samim, resident of Mohalla-Mansuri Tola, P.O -Pakur, P.S. -Pakur (Town),
District- Pakur, Jharkhand --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. PP
I.A. No. 8151 of 2024
08/27.02.2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Spl.
PP representing the State.
2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for
suspension of sentence of the appellant by enlarging him on bail
during pendency of the instant criminal appeal, which has been
preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
both dated 16.03.2024 passed in Special POCSO Case No.70 of
2018 arising out of Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.164 of 2018 by the
learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Pakur whereby the appellant has
been convicted under Section 8 of POCSO Act and under Section
354B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with a fine
of Rs.25,000/- only for the offences punishable under Section
354(B) of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, further directed
to undergo R.I. for six months. No sentence has been passed under
Section 8 of POCSO Act in terms of Section 42 of the POCSO Act.
3. The learned defence counsel at the outset has submitted on
behalf of the appellant that the appellant has been convicted for the
offences punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act 2012 and
Section 354(B) of the IPC but the prosecution has failed during the
course of the trial to conclusively ascertain the age of the victim as
to whether she was minor or not within the meaning of POCSO Act,
2012 in order to convict the appellant for the offences punishable
under Section 8 of POCSO Act 2012.
4. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that it is
admitted case of the prosecution that on earlier occasion a case was
instituted against the appellant of similar nature in which the
appellant was enlarged on bail and thereafter the informant people
had brutally assaulted the appellant for which a case was instituted
by the appellant against the family members of the victim and
hence, the present case has been falsely instituted at the instance of
the family members of the victim PW-1 and this fact is evident from
the testimonies of PW-8.
5. Further, it has also been pointed out on behalf of the
appellant that this appellant has remain in jail in the pre-conviction
period for about three months and after conviction, he has been
languishing in jail since 16.03.2024 and the maximum sentence
awarded to the appellant is five years.
6. Further, the I.O. PW-7 was confronted with the major
contradiction in the statement of the victim PW-1 with respect to
her earlier version about the alleged incident where the I.O. has
categorically stated that victim has not stated in her earlier
statement about outraging her modesty either within the meaning of
sexual assault under the POCSO Act or under Section 354(B) of
IPC and therefore the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail by
suspending the order of sentence.
7. On the other hand, learned Spl.PP appearing on behalf of the
State has opposed the contentions raised by the appellant and
strongly contended that the victim has categorically supported the
case of the prosecution in her deposition who has been examined as
PW-1 and also on her earlier statement recorded under Section 164
of the Cr.P.C. she has supported the case of the prosecution and
therefore this appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail but
did not controvert this fact that no documentary evidence has been
brought on record by the prosecution in order to determine the age
of the victim although in the deposition she has stated her age about
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 324 of 2024
14 years and at the time of her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C.
as 13 years.
8. Heard the parties, perused the record of the case including the
depositions of witnesses and other exhibits.
9. In view of the persuasive submission advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant, it is found just and proper to enlarge the
appellant on bail.
10. Accordingly, the appellant named above is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Pakur in
connection with Special POCSO Case No.70 of 2018 arising out of
Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.164 of 2018.
11. I.A. No. 8151 of 2024 is allowed.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant/S.Das
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 324 of 2024
