Md. Sajid vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4257 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Md. Sajid vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 June, 2025

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 711 of 2022

   Md. Sajid, aged about 52 years, son of late Md. Yahiya,
   resident of Aam Bagan 22 No., Sakchi P.O. and P.S. Sakchi,
   District East Singbhum, Jamshedpur        ... Appellant
                            Versus
  1. The State of Jharkhand
  2. Victim "X" (Father of Victim "X") ......         Respondents
                         -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

-----

  For the Appellant        : Mr. Naveen Jaiswal, Advocate
   For the State            : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
  For the Informant         : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate
                            .....
Order No. 09/ Dated: 25.06.2025

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the judgment of conviction dated 21.07.2022 and order of sentence dated 27.07.2022 passed in Special ( POCSO) Case No. 2553 of 2018 by Sri Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay, the learned Special Judge ( POCSO), East Singbhum at Jamshedpur in connection with M.G.M. P.S. Case No. 66 of 2018 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offences under sections 354, 354A and 506 of the I.P.C and under sections 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for the period of six (06) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for committing the offence under section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and further sentenced to undergo R.I. of two (02) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 2,000/- for committing the offence under section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and further sentenced to undergo R.I. of three years and to pay the fine of Rs. 3,000/- for committing the offence under section 354 of the IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. of three

years and to pay the fine of Rs. 2,000/- for committing the offence under section 506 of the IPC .

However all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently .

2. The prosecution case, on the basis of written report of the Informant - father of the victim, in brief, is that his victim daughter aged about 11 years was the student of Class- VI of J.H. Tarapur School, Dhatkidih and she used to go to attend her school on School Van No. JH 0AN 9654 at about 6.00 A.M and she used to return back her home from that Van. However, the driver of the said Van Md. Sajid used to take his victim daughter on front seat of that Van while she used to go to her school.

It is further alleged that for the last ten days, they felt a sudden change in the behavior of the victim daughter and she started remaining silent and scared and on being asked she used to cry and did not tell anything. It is further alleged that in the night of 01.08.2018, he and his wife asked the victim daughter after persuasion about reason thereof and then she told that the driver of the said school Van used to molest her by making her sit in the front seat in the Van by parking the said Van in the campus of Siroman Nagar Colony at Mango, Dimna Road and he used to touch her private parts and he also used to enter his hand inside her Panty. It is further alleged that when she cried and refused the said driver, he used to threaten to silence her and out of fear, she could not tell the said incident to anyone. It is further alleged that after getting the said information from his victim daughter, he was shocked and immediately went to Siroman Nagar where he was told by Soni Singh of that locality that the said driver used to come in the

morning time to pickup some children of Siroman Nagar and he used to park the said vehicle inside the apartment and he had seen committing some wrong act with female child and as such, two to three days before, he scolded him and thereafter, the said driver went away after boarding other children. It is further alleged that on 02.08.2018 he decided to verify the said incidence himself and when in the morning of date of occurrence his victim daughter went to her school on that Van, he followed up the said Van by his Scooty and it was seen by him that after some distance, the driver of the said Van started pulling his victim daughter towards him and he started teasing with her and as such, he immediately, stopped the Scooty in front of his Van and he got down his victim daughter from the Van . In the meantime, some people assembled there and when they learnt that the said driver was committing wrong act with his daughter, thus they started assaulting him and thereafter, the said driver was handed over to the police. who disclosed his name as Md. Sajid.

3. I. A. No. 12598 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the appellant for grant of bail.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel of the State and the learned counsel for the Informant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is arguing on the point of custody and not on merit of this case. It is submitted that the complainant is in custody for more than half of the sentence. It is submitted that during the trial the appellant is in custody from 02.08.2018 to 13.05.2019 i.e. more than nine (09) months and thereafter from the date of conviction i.e. 21.07.2022 till date and thus he has remained

in custody around three years and nine (09) months has already been passed and hence the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the bail of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant has committed heinous crime. It is submitted that on being release of the appellant on bail, the appellant may threaten the Informant as well as the victim girl and the witnesses of this case and hence, prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected.

7. The learned counsel for the Informant has also opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the appellant had misbehaved and had badly touched the victim girl on several occasions. It is submitted that the victim girl has supported her case as P.W. 2 , whereas P.W. 1 Soni Singh is eye witness of the part of the incident of FIR and P.W. 4 i.e. father - the Informant of this case and who has also fully supported the prosecution case and hence the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected.

8. Perused the Lower Court Records and I.A. No. 12598 of 2024 considered the submission of both the sides.

9. It appears that there is direct allegation against the appellant for misbehaving and badly touching her private parts with bad intention.

10. It appears from the Lower Court Report that the appellant was in custody from 02.08.2018 to 13.05.2019 i.e. more than nine (09) months and thereafter he is in custody since 21.07.2022.

11. It appears that the appellant is in custody, for about three (03) years and nine (09) months out of R.I. for six (06) years .

12. It appears that the victim girl has supported her case and the father of the victim girl has been examined as P.W. 4 who also supported the prosecution case against the appellant. Even the I.O. of this case has supported and corroborated the prosecution case.

13. Though the appellant has committed heinous offence which is found by the learned Trial Court below, however considering the period of custody of the appellant that the appellant has remained in custody for around three (03) years and nine (09) months out of R.I. for six (06) years, this Court is allowing the prayer for bail of the appellant at this stage.

14. Considering the custody of the appellant and on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the appellant Md. Sajid is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five Thousand only ) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), East Singbhum at Jamshedpur or his Successor Court in Special ( POCSO) Case No. 2553 of 2018 arising out of M.G.M. P.S. Case No. 66 of 2018 subject to the condition that both the bailors must be own relative of the appellant and one of the bailors must be blood relation and the appellant must file an Undertaking not to get indulged in such type of crime in future again, and the appellant and the family members / friends/ associates shall not threaten the Informant as well as the victim girl and the witnesses of this case after being released on bail and the appellant and his family members /

friends/associates will not take law and order in their own hands in the District of Jamshedpur failing which , it will be open to the prosecution instantly take steps for cancellation bail of the appellant.

15. Thus I.A. No. 12598 of 2024 is allow with the observation as mentioned above.

16. In the meantime, let a report be called for from the learned Secretary D.L.S.A., Jamshedpur to inform this Court immediately as to whether the victim girl has been given any compensation under the provision of Victim Compensation Act or not ?

17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur and the learned Secretary D.L.S.A., Jamshedpur and to all the concerned for the needful.

18. Office is directed to place this case on receipt of the report from the learned Secretary, D.L.S.A., Jamshedpur under an appropriate heading.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

Bibha/