Jharkhand High Court
Sandeep Kumar Thakur @ Sandeep Kr. ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 55 of 2025
With
I.A. No. 13831 of 2024
---------
Sandeep Kumar Thakur @ Sandeep Kr. Thakur @
Sandeep Thakur
..... Appellant
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.(Victim) X through her natural guardian (father)
..... Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, A.P.P.
---------
04/20.06.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on
behalf of the Appellant challenging the judgment of
conviction dated 21.11.2024 and sentence dated
25.11.2024, passed by Sri Kumar Pawan, learned Special
Judge (POCSO), Godda in Special (POCSO) Case No. 66 of
2023, arising out of Boarijore P.S. Case No. 22 of 2023, by
which the Appellant, namely Sandeep Kumar Thakur @
Sandeep Kr. Thakur @ Sandeep Thakur has been
convicted for the offence under Sections 341/354(B) of
I.P.C. and under Section 8 of POCSO Act and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for Five (05) years and to pay the fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) for the offence under
Section 354(B) of I.P.C. and S.I. for One (01) month for the
offence under Section 341 of I.P.C.
However, both the sentences have been
directed to run concurrently and the period of custody, if
already undergone during the course of investigation and
trial, was directed to be set off.
2. As Per F.I.R., it is alleged that the
appellant had dragged the Informant with bad intention,
however, she raised alarm and could be rescued.
Thereafter, Boarijore P.S. Case No. 22 of 2023 was
instituted for the offence under Sections 341/342/
323/504/506/354(B) of I.P.C. and Under Section 8 of
POCSO Act.
3. The instant Interlocutory Application has
been filed on behalf of the Appellant for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail during pendency of this
Criminal Appeal.
4. Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for
the Appellant, Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, learned A.P.P.
appearing for the State.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the appellant that the impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal,
arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that
the age of the victim girl has not been proved. It is
submitted that the appellant is alone in the village in his
caste and the Informant side are much in number and in
order to put pressure on the appellant to leave the village,
the instant case was instituted. It is submitted that a
counter case had been instituted on the same date of
occurrence as the Informant and his family members had
entered into the house of the appellant and had assaulted
them, for which the brother of the appellant had
instituted Boarijore P.S. Case No.23 of 2023. It is
submitted that Principal of the School, namely Md.
Kalam, who was examined as P.W.6, has admitted that he
had admitted the victim girl in his school on 08.07.2023,
whereas the occurrence took place on 16.08.2023 and
thus, the date of birth of the victim girl shown in the Birth
Certificate is doubtful as apart from Adhar Card and there
is no other certificate. It is submitted that the appellant is
in custody since 21.11.2024, i.e. for more than Seven (07)
months, hence the appellant may be enlarged on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has
opposed the prayed for bail.
7. It is submitted that there is direct
allegation against the appellant for dragging the victim girl
towards the mountain for trying to commit rape upon her.
It is submitted that the victim girl-Informant, who has
been examined as P.W. 5, has fully supported her case. It
is submitted that P.W.1, who is the father of the victim
girl, whereas P.W. 2, 3 and 4, i.e. Mother of the victim girl,
Grandmother of the victim girl and Md. Hafiz Ansari, i.e.
the seizure-list witness respectively have also supported
the prosecution case, hence prayer for bail made on
behalf of the appellant may be rejected.
8. Perused the Lower Court Record and
considered the submission of both the sides.
9. It appears that the appellant has been
named in the F.I.R. for trying to commit rape upon the
victim girl, however, during cross-examination the victim
girl stated that she has lodged the F.I.R. on the
instruction of his father.
10. It also reveals from the evidence of I.O.,
namely Tapan Kumar Panigrahi, examined as P.W.9 that
the victim girl has refused to get her medical examination
done.
11. It appears that neither the medical
examination of the victim girl was conducted nor the
Statement of victim girl under 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
12. It appears that the appellant is in custody
since 21.11.2024, i.e. for more than Seven (07) months.
13. In view of the above discussions and on
the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
appellant, namely Sandeep Kumar Thakur @ Sandeep Kr.
Thakur @ Sandeep Thakur is directed to be released on
Bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 66 of
2023, arising out of Boarijore P.S. Case No. 22 of 2023, to
the satisfaction of the Sri Kumar Pawan, learned Special
Judge(POCSO), Godda/or His Successor Court.
14. Thus, I.A. No. 13831 of 2024 is allowed
and stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
s.m.
