Jharkhand High Court
Bharat Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.552 of 2025
....
1. Bharat Yadav, aged about 21 years, son of Nakul Yadav,
2. Md. Mahboob @ Mahboob Ansari aged about 25 years, son of
Jumdali Mian,
Both resident of Chitarpoka, P.O.-Ghormara, P.S.-
Mohanpur, Dist.-Deoghar
......Appellants
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Victim-X ......Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, APP
......
th
Order No.07/18 November 2025
I.A. No.6072 of 2025
This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellants by challenging the judgment of conviction dated
08.04.2025 and sentence dated 11.04.2025 passed in Special
POCSO Case No.12 of 2024 by Sri Rajendra Kumar Sinha,
learned Special Judge POCSO, Deoghar in connection with
Sonaraithari P.S. Case No.46 of 2023 by which the appellants have
been convicted for the offences under Sections
341,323,354,504,506,34 of IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one (01) months each for the
offence under Section 341/34 of IPC, and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for six (06) months each for the offence under Section 323/34
of IPC, sentenced to undergo R.I. for one (01) years each for the
offence under Section 504/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for one (01) each for the offence under Section 506/34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for four (04) years each and to pay the
fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under Section 8 of the
POCSO Act.
However, all the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
2. I.A. No.6072 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
appellants for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Court below is illegal and not sustainable in eye of law. It
is submitted that the appellants are innocent and have committed
no offence. It is submitted that the allegations leveled against the
appellants are false and concocted. It is submitted that the victim
girl has named the appellants on the basis of information furnished
by her brother and she has not identified any of the appellant. It is
submitted that the PW-1 i.e. the brother of the victim, PW-2 i.e. the
mother of the victim, PW-3 namely Gopal Kumar Yadav, are the
hearsay witnesses and PW-4 is the victim girl herself who has
named both the appellants but she has named the appellants on the
basis of information given by her brother. It is submitted that the
teacher, to whom the incident was informed, had also not been
examined by the prosecution. It is submitted that the appellants
were never arrested and they had been enlarged on anticipatory
bail during trial. It is submitted that after the judgment of
conviction the appellant is in custody since 08.04.2025 i.e. for
more than seven (07) months and hence, the appellants may be
enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of
bail of the appellants. It is submitted that the appellants and other
co-accused persons had caught hold the victim girl, who was aged
around 14-15 years and they have misbehaved with her. It is
submitted that PW-1 i.e. brother of the victim PW-2 i.e. the mother
of the victim and PW-3 namely Gopal Kumar Yadav have fully
supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that the PW-4, who
is the victim girl herself, has fully supported the allegations leveled
against the appellants. It is submitted that the PW-5 who is the I.O.
in this case has supported and corroborated the prosecution case
and hence, the prayer of bail of the appellant may be rejected.
6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from
perusal of the records of this case, it appears from the L.C.R that
the occurrence took place on 05.07.2023 but the FIR was lodged
on 08.07.2023 (i.e. after delay of three days).
7. It reveals from the FIR that the victim girl has not
identified the appellants and other co-accused persons on the next
date of occurrence rather she has named the appellants on the basis
of information given by her brother.
8. It also reveals that the victim girl was not even medically
examined. However, as per the FIR, it reveals that one of the
appellants is alleged to have caught hair of the victim girl whereas
the other appellant is alleged to have caught hand of the victim girl
and one unknown person was trying to misbehave with her.
9. It appears that the appellants are in custody since
08.04.2025.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and
also considering the custody of the appellants, the appellants
namely Bharat Yadav and Md. Mahboob @ Mahboob Ansari are
directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
twenty thousand (Rs.20,000/-) with two sureties of the like amount
each, to the satisfaction Sri Rajendra Kumar Sinha, learned Special
Judge POCSO, Deoghar/or his Successor Court in connection with
Sonaraithari P.S. Case No.46 of 2023 subject to the condition that
one of the bailors must be the own relative of the appellants and
the appellants shall furnish their respective personal mobile
number and Aadhaar Card before the learned Court below, which
shall not be changed during the pendency of the trial and also
subject to the condition that the appellants shall file an undertaking
before the learned Court below that they will not indulge in such
type of crime in future again, failing which the prosecution will be
at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bails.
11. Thus, I.A. No.6072 of 2025 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated 18.11.2025
Nishant/-
