Jharkhand High Court
Santu Karmakar @ Sentu Karmakar @ Sentu ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 March, 2025
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 788 of 2024
Santu Karmakar @ Sentu Karmakar @ Sentu Makmir aged about 19 years
S/o Surendra Karmakar, R/o Gorigram PO-Bhojudih Chandankiyari, P.S.-
Chandankiyari, District- Bokaro --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. Niranjan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP
I.A. No. 100 of 2025
06/07.03.2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP
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 02.09.2024 passed in Special POCSO Case No.18 of
2024 arising out of Dhansar P.S. Case No.256 of 2023 by the
learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Dhanbad whereby the appellant
has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and a fine of
Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional
imprisonment for one month.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the maximum
sentence awarded to the appellant is three years for the offence
punishable under Section 363 of the IPC and he is in custody since
22.12.2023.
4. Further, it has also been submitted on behalf of the appellant
that no ingredient of Section 363 of IPC is attracted as evident
categorically in unequivocal words in the testimonies of the victim
PW-1 who says in paragraph one of her deposition that the
appellant came to her school and she accompanied him to bus-stand
Dhanbad and thereafter both went to Ranchi and from Ranchi went
to Puna and from Puna they went to Nagpur where her father Nandu
Rajak came along with police and thereafter she came back to
Dhanbad and further in para 2, she stated that the appellant did not
commit any wrong with her and in view of such statements of the
victim during the course of the trial, ingredients that fasten the guilt
of the appellant under section 361 of the IPC are not fulfilled as per
the definition of kidnapping which has been set out under Section
361 of IPC in order to convict him for the offence of kidnapping
under Section 363 of the IPC.
5. It has further been pointed out that earlier statement of the
victim PW-1 has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. also
where there is no trace of any kind of kidnapping alleged to be
committed by the appellant within the meaning of Section 363 of
IPC.
6. Further, it has also been pointed out that Section 363 of IPC
under which the appellant has been convicted is bailable in nature
and he is languishing custody since 22.12.2023 and in this view of
matter it is urged on behalf of the appellant that let the appellant be
enlarged on bail by suspending the order of sentence.
7. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the
State has opposed the contentions raised by the appellant but did not
controvert this fact that there is no use of any coercion, enticement
or taking away by using force to take the victim by the appellant as
evident from the deposition of the victim herself but he has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC
which is heinous offence and therefore he does not deserve to be
enlarged on bail.
8. Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case
including the depositions of the witnesses examined on behalf of
the prosecution and other materials available on record.
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
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 788 of 2024
Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Dhanbad in
connection with Special POCSO Case No.18 of 2024 arising out of
Dhansar P.S. Case No.256 of 2023.
11. I.A. No. 100 of 2025 is allowed and as such disposed of.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant/S.Das
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 788 of 2024
