Jharkhand High Court
Sunney Gope vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2025
Author: Ambuj Nath
Bench: Ananda Sen, Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1518 of 2022
-----
Sunney Gope, S/o Purno Gope, R/o Village- Guddu Sai, P.S.&P.O.
Seraikela, Dist Seraikela- Kharsawana at present R/o Bagan Area
Sidhgora, Cross Road No.8, P.S. Sidhgora, Dist- East Singhbhum
... Appellant(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent(s).
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI AMBUJ NATH, J.
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Parwez Ahmad Khan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P.
.........
07 /18.11.2025: I.A. No.9843 of 2025
The earlier application for suspension of sentence was
withdrawn by this appelalnt. By filing this interlocutory
application, the appellant, namely, Sunney Gope has renewed
his prayer to suspend the sentence and release him on bail
during the pendency of this appeal.
2. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced in
connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 2482 of 2016, arising
out of Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 127 of 2016, for the offence under
Sections 302, 201, 376(2)(1), 376A of IPC and Section 4 & 6 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He has
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and
also to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 302 of IPC amongst
other sentences and other sentences for other offences.
3. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant and learned
A.P.P. for the State and have gone through the impugned
judgment, the evidence and the Trial Court Records.
4. Opportunity was given to the State to oppose the bail,
which the State availed and opposed.
5. The appellant has renewed his prayer, on the ground that
the appeal has not been heard and he has remained in custody
for more than 9 years.
6. After going through the evidence, we find that admittedly
there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The deceased is 3 and
½ years old child, who was raped and murdered. On the basis of
the circumstantial evidence, this appellant has been convicted.
We are not entering into detail merits of this case, but we cannot
lose sight of the fact that this appellant has remained in custody
since 20.08.2016 i.e. for more than 9 years. The appeal is of the
year 2022. Admittedly, there are much older appeals pending for
hearing. This instant appeal has already been admitted for
hearing and there is no likelihood of this appeal to be taken up in
near future. This Court is not in a position to hear this appeal
within a reasonable time frame. The situation where an appeal is
admitted for hearing and the Court is not in a position to hear
the appeal, where the appellant is in custody and the appellant is
praying for bail is taken note of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in
(1977) 4 SCC 291. In the aforesaid judgment at paragraph 2, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
2. The appellant contends in this application that pending the hearing of the
appeal he should be released on bail. Now, the practice in this Court as also in
many of the High Courts has been not to release on bail a person who has been
sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal
Code, 1860. The question is whether this practice should be departed from and
if so, in what circumstances. It is obvious that no practice howsoever
sanctified by usage and hallowed by time can be allowed to prevail if it
operates to cause injustice. Every practice of the Court must find its ultimate
justification in the interest of justice. The practice not to release on bail a
person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment was evolved in the High
Courts and in this Court on the basis that once a person has been found guilty
and sentenced to life imprisonment, he should not be let loose, so long as his
conviction and sentence are not set aside, but the underlying postulate of this
practice was that the appeal of such person would be disposed of within a
measurable distance of time, so that if he is ultimately found to be innocent, he
would not have to remain in jail for an unduly long period. The rationale of
this practice can have no application where the Court is not in a position to
dispose of the appeal for five or six years. It would indeed be a travesty of
justice to keep a person in jail for a period of five or six years for an offence
which is ultimately found not to have been committed by him. Can the Court
ever compensate him for his incarceration which is found to be unjustified?
Would it be just at all for the Court to tell a person: "We have admitted your
appeal because we think you have a prima facie case, but unfortunately we
have no time to hear your appeal for quite a few years and, therefore, until we
hear your appeal, you must remain in jail, even though you may be
innocent?" What confidence would such administration of justice inspire in
the mind of the public? It may quite conceivably happen, and it has in fact
happened in a few cases in this Court, that a person may serve out his full
term of imprisonment before his appeal is taken up for hearing. Would a Judge
not be overwhelmed with a feeling of contrition while acquitting such a person
after hearing the appeal? Would it not be an affront to his sense of justice? Of
what avail would the acquittal be to such a person who has already served out
his term of imprisonment or at any rate a major part of it? It is, therefore,
absolutely essential that the practice which this Court has been following in
the past must be reconsidered and so long as this Court is not in a position to
hear the appeal of an accused within a reasonable period of time, the Court
should ordinarily, unless there are cogent grounds for acting otherwise,
release the accused on bail in cases where special leave has been granted to the
accused to appeal against his conviction and sentence.
7. Considering the aforesaid judgment and fact that this
Court is not in a position to hear this appeal expeditiously also
the fact that this appellant has remained in custody for more
than 9 years and there is no direct evidence of commission of
murder against this appellant, we are inclined to allow this
application. Appellant, named above is directed to be released
on bail during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge,
(POCSO), East Singhbhum Jamshedpur, in connection with
Special (POCSO) Case No. 2482 of 2016, arising out of Sidhgora
P.S. Case No. 127 of 2016 with a condition that one of the bailers
must be a close relative of the appellant and with a further
condition that the appellant shall appear and mark his
attendance before the Registrar, Civil Court, East Singhbhum
Jamshedpur once in every six months till the disposal of this
appeal.
8. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being
I.A. No.9843 of 2025 stands allowed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(AMBUJ NATH, J.)
18th November, 2025
R.S./Sandeep
