Adnan Ahmad @ Adnan Ahmed Son Of Imtiyaz ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3250 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Adnan Ahmad @ Adnan Ahmed Son Of Imtiyaz ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 March, 2025

Author: Navneet Kumar

Bench: Navneet Kumar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 216 of 2025

Adnan Ahmad @ Adnan Ahmed son of Imtiyaz Ahmad, aged about 25 years,
resident of Village-Ghosh Compound, Central Street, P.O. and P.S. Hindpiri,
District-Ranchi                                 ... ... Appellant
                             Versus
The State of Jharkhand                    ... ... Respondent
                             -------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, APP

--------

th Order No. 02/ Dated 12 March, 2025

1. This appeal is admitted.

2. Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State.

3. Let the Lower Court Record be called for. IA No.2921 of 2025

4. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant for confirmation of provisional bail granted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 17.02.2025 in POCSO Case No.29 of 2019 arising out Hindpiri P.S. Case No.07 of 2019 during the pendency of the instant criminal appeal which has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 17.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Special Judge POCSO, Ranchi whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 354, 354(D) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 354 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, S.I. for 06 months, further the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 354(D) of IPC and in default of payment of fine, S.I. for 06 months and the period already undergone during the investigation and trial would be set off. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that after recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, in view of the fact that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant was three years under Section 354 & 354(D) of the IPC and thereafter the learned trial Court granted the provisional bail vide order dated 17.02.2025 to the appellant for a period of 30 days till 18.03.2025 in order to facilitate the appellant to prefer an appeal and in this view of matter, it is prayed on behalf of the appellant that let the provisional bail granted to the appellant be confirmed.

6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State does not raise any objection.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, the provisional bail granted to the appellant is hereby confirmed.

9. Accordingly, the instant I.A. No.2921 of 2025 is allowed and as such disposed of.

(Navneet Kumar, J.) Basant/S. Das

2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 216 of 2025