Jharkhand High Court
Sajid Ansari @ Charku @ Md. Sajid Ansari @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.209 of 2025
....
Sajid Ansari @ Charku @ Md. Sajid Ansari @ Charku
......Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Mohan Pandit (father of victim ) ......Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Nawin Jaiswal, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Amrita Kumari, APP
For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate
......
Order No.08/30.06.2025
This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellant by challenging the judgment of conviction dated
05.02.2025 and sentence dated 12.02.2025 passed by Sri Yashwant
Prakash, learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih in connection
with POCSO Case No.60/2018 arising out of Dhanwar P.S. Case
No.229/2018 by which the appellant has been convicted for the
offence under Section 363/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for seven (07) years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty
Five Thousand).
However, the learned Court below has acquitted the
appellant for the charges under Section 366-A/34, 504/34, 376/347
and Section 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
2. I.A. No.2472 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
appellant under Section 430(1) of the BNSS for suspension of
sentence and for grant of bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP
as well learned counsel for the Informant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court
below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is
submitted that the allegation of kidnapping of victim girl is not
correct. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, the appellant and
the victim girl were neighbours and known to each other, much
before the date of occurrence. It is submitted that the statement of
victim girl was recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC and she had not
supported the prosecution case against the appellant and submitted
that she had voluntarily gone with the appellant. It is submitted
that even the victim girl was examined as PW-12 during Trial and
she was declared hostile by the prosecution. It is submitted that in
the medical examination, no sign of rape found upon the victim
girl. It is submitted that the victim girl had married with the
appellant on 08.08.2020 when the victim girl became major and
after the marriage she has given birth two girls child and the
victim and her daughters are living with the appellant at the time
of passing of judgement of conviction and sentence. It is submitted
that the appellant was in custody from June 2018 to till
02.02.2019 (when he released on bail) and he had remained in the
custody for around 7-8 months during Trial and thereafter the
appellant is in custody from 05.02.2025 then the appellant
remained in custody for about five (05) months. It is further
submitted that though the victim girl had married with the
appellant but till date the victim girl has not changed her religion
and for which the learned counsel for the appellant submitted at
bar that that he had taken specific instruction from the family
members of the appellant. It is submitted that even the father of the
appellant had informed, who is the Pairvikar, stated before him
that she i.e. the victim girl had not changed her religion and has
been practicing her own faith. It is submitted that the Section 363
of IPC is bailable in nature and hence the learned Court below
should have released the appellant on bail and hence the sentence
may be suspended and hence the appellant may be enlarged on
bail.
5. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail. It is
submitted that the victim girl was minor at the time of occurrence.
It is submitted that although the victim girl has not supported the
prosecution case during her statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. but she was minor girl at the relevant time. It is submitted
that the PW-1, PW-7, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11 who are the grand
father, brother, mother, father, and brother of the victim girl, have
fully supported the prosecution case and they have stated that the
appellant had forcibly taken away the victim girl on the
motorcycle to marry with the appellant after changing her religion.
It is submitted that the appellant has already forcibly got changed
the religion of the victim girl. It is submitted that PW-1, PW-7,
PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11 who are the grand father, brother,
mother, father, and brother of the victim girl, have also stated that
the religion of the victim girl has been changed and wrong sexual
video was prepared to put the victim girl in fear and the victim girl
was forced to become hostile and hence the prayer of bail of the
appellant may be rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the
submission of learned APP, has further submitted that the appellant
has forcibly kidnapped the victim girl. It is submitted that the
marriage of the victim girl was fixed on 29.06.2018 by the
appellant but the victim girl was kidnapped on 09.06.2018 by the
appellant. It is further submitted that the all the family members
i.e. the father, mother and brother of the victim girl who had been
examined as PW-1, PW-7, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11, have fully
supported the allegation against the appellant and hence the prayer
of bail of the appellant may be rejected.
7. Perused the Trial Court Records and Interlocutory
Application and considered the submissions from both the sides.
8. It appears that the PW-11 i.e. the brother of the victim girl
had lodged the FIR against the appellant and seven (07) other
person for kidnapping his sister i.e. the victim girl by the appellant
on 09.06.2018 for the purpose of marriage and also for changing
her religion and although the marriage of the victim girl was fixed
on 29.06.2018.
9. It transpires that during the investigation the victim girl
was recovered after ten (10) days.
10. It appears that after the recovery of the victim girl, the
victim girl had not gone to her house of her parents rather she had
remained in Nari Niketan, at Deoghar and thereafter, her statement
was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 29.06.2018 and she had
merely stated that she had gone outside her house because she did
not want to solemnize the marriage fixed by her family members
and she also stated that she had gone to some relatives' house but
she is not ready to tell the names of the relatives.
11. From perusal of the statement of witnesses PW-1,
PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-11, PW-12 of the family
members of the victim girl, it would appear that the appellant had
kidnapped the victim girl while she was returning to her residence,
after attending the call of nature and when the father and mother of
the victim girl was made query of her from the family members of
the appellant then had stated that the appellant Sajid Ansari had
taken her and got prepared vulgar photographs and committed rape
upon her and had changed her religion forcibly.
12. From perusal of the statement of victim girl examined as
PW-12, it would appear that she had denied that her parents and
family members are her guardian and she remained at the remand
home from 29.06.2018 till 18.07.2020 i.e. the date of her
deposition. She had also stated that the appellant had not
committed any occurrence with her and the police has not
recorded her statement. However, her statement was recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C which was marked as Exhibit-5/1.
Even during the cross-examination, made by the learned
APP and defence side, she had denied the occurrence against the
appellant.
13. From perusal of the evidence of the Investigating Officers
namely Shailendra Kumar Singh and Kamlesh Prasad examined as
PW-13 and PW-14 respectively, it would appear that PW-13 i.e. the
first Investigating Officer who had mainly recovered, had stated
that he had sent the victim girl to remand home and also sent the
victim girl for medical examination on 29.06.2018 and statement
of the victim girl recorded and thereafter he had handed over the
investigation to the PW-14. Thus, PW-13 is silent on the point of
change of religion.
PW-14 had taken investigation in this case on 05.09.2018
and he kept further investigation pending against other person
Siraj Ansari, Moin Ansari, Jayguna Khatoon, Sanour Ansari and
Saigun Khatoon and against mother of accused appellant.
Thereafter, he had submitted the chargesheet against the appellant
and her mother.
14. From the statement of the learned counsel for the
appellant made at 'BAR', it would appear that though the victim
girl was minor at the time of marriage and although she has
performed with the appellant but she has not changed her religion
and the victim girl has not been forced to change her religion and
she has been perusing her own religion and she is mother of two
children arising out of the marital wedlock of the appellant.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and
considered the facts that the victim girl had been declared became
hostile by the prosecution and she had not supported the
prosecution case rather she is living with the appellant in the house
of family member of the appellant and considering the custody of
the appellant, the appellant namely Sajid Ansari @ Charku @ Md.
Sajid Ansari @ Charku is directed to be released on bail, on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction Sri
Yashwant Prakash, learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih in
connection with POCSO Case No.60/2018 arising out of Dhanwar
P.S. Case No.229/2018 or his Successor Court in connection
subject to the condition that both the bailor must be own relatives
of the appellant and one of the bailor must be having landed
property in the name of himself/herself and also subject to the
condition that the appellant shall give undertaking that the
appellant shall not force the victim girl to change her religion and
also subject to the condition that the appellant will continue to look
after the victim girl and her two minor daughters for the whole life
and shall not misuse the privilege of bail and also subject to the
condition that the appellant and his family members shall not
threaten the Informant and her parents as well as brothers of the
Informant in future, failing which the prosecution will be at liberty
to take step for cancellation of the bail of the appellant
16. It is expected that the victim girl would be entitled to all
the legal rights in the family of the appellant.
17. Thus, I.A. No.2472 of 2025 of 2025 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
18. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of
Police, Giridih.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Nishant/-
