Sanjeet Chouhan @ Sanjeet Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 6961 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sanjeet Chouhan @ Sanjeet Kumar 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. 1125 of 2023
        Sanjeet Chouhan @ Sanjeet Kumar, aged about 25 years, son of Rajendra Chouhan,
        resident of Block-77, Quarter No. 911, Karmick Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Saraidhela, District-
        Dhanbad.                                                   ....     Appellant
                                       Versus
        The State of Jharkhand                                     ....     Respondent
                                      ------
                 CORAM :            SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

SRI AMBUJ NATH, J.

        For the Appellant                :      Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
        For the State                    :      Ms. Anuradha Sahay, AP.P.
                                        -----
         I.A. No. 13043 of 2025
6/ 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 19.03.2024. 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 Spl. (POCSO) Case No.127 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 363, 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 read with Section 5(h) and (i) of the POCSO Act. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years along with fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act amongst other sentences.

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. There is no fresh ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the appellant. While dealing with the bail application of the appellant on 19.03.2024, this Court held that the evidence of victim and medical evidence proved the allegation against the appellant. The medical evidence also shows the injury on the body of the victim. The statement of the victim also suggests that this appellant had committed the occurrence.

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

7. The aforesaid interlocutory stands dismissed.

(Ananda Sen, J.)

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