Bhuglu Mahali vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 6959 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Bhuglu Mahali 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 (DB) No. 860 of 2023
       Bhuglu Mahali, aged about 48 years, son of Khokha Mahali, resident of
       Village- Rapcha, P.O. & P.S.- Gamharia, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan.
                                                           .... Appellant
                                  Versus
       The State of Jharkhand                              .... Respondent
                                ------
              CORAM :         SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

SRI AMBUJ NATH, J.

------

        For the Appellant             :      Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
        For the State                 :      Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
                                     -----
         I.A. No. 6071 of 2025
8/ 18.11.2025        This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant,

praying therein to suspend the sentence and release him on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

2. Prayer for bail of the appellant was earlier rejected on 06.03.2024. This is second attempt to renew his prayer for suspension of sentence and release on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced in connection with POCSO Case No. 22 of 2019 arising out of Gamharia P.S. Case No. 64 of 2018, for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

4. 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.

5. The age of the victim was assessed to be 10-13 years. This Court while rejecting the earlier bail application of this appellant, had already considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant in paragraph- 4, which reads as under: -

"4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the FIR was lodged after four days of the occurrence. He further submits that P.W.-3, who is the victim has not stated the correct fact. He further submits that medical evidence does not corroborate with the statement of the victim neither the FSL report. His contention is that if the FSL report is read properly, it will be crystal clear that this appellant was not involved in the occurrence. He further submits that from the evidence of P.W.- 2 i.e. the mother of the victim it is clear that there was enmity between the appellant and the family of the victim. He also raises dispute in relation to the age of the victim."

6. There is no new material to reconsider the application for bail of the appellant, except extra custody of one and half years, which according to us, is not sufficient.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, we not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Thus, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected.

8. The aforesaid interlocutory stands dismissed.

(Ananda Sen, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.) 18.11.2025 R.Kr./Rahul