Jharkhand High Court
Uday Singh Kuntiya @ Uday Singh Kuntia vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 November, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1699 of 2023
-----
Uday Singh Kuntiya @ Uday Singh Kuntia, son of late Silay Singh
Kuntiya, resident of village+PO Parampancho, PS Mufassil, District
West Singhbhum ... Appellant(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent(s).
......
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, APP
.........
07 /20.11.2025: I.A. No. 15364 of 2025
By filing this interlocutory application, the appellant has
renewed his prayer to suspend the sentence and release him on
bail during pendency of this appeal.
2. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced in
connection with Special POCSO Case No. 30 of 2018 (arising out
of Mufassil PS Case No. 97 of 2018). He has been convicted for
the offences under sections 376 DA and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code and section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offence (POCSO) Act and sentenced to imprisonment for the
remainder of his natural life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- under
section 376 DA of the Indian Penal Code and other sentences for
other offence.
3. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel 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. Earlier by a reasoned order on 05.08.2024 the application
for suspension of sentence of the appellant has been rejected.
6. Paragraph no. 5 of the aforesaid order clearly suggest the
grounds as to why the aforesaid application was rejected. This is
a case of gang rape of a minor girl child by six persons. The
victim has supported the prosecution case and has identified this
appellant.
7. This is an application under section 389 of the Criminal
Procedure Code read with section 430(1) of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3409
of 2025 titled "Aasif @ Pasha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others" in paragraph 10 and 14 had categorised two types of
sentences one being fixed term and other being life
imprisonment. It is also held that when the sentence is of life
sentence the consideration for suspension of sentence would be
of different approach.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in Criminal
Appeal No. 4804 of 2025 titled "Chhotelal Yadav vs. State of
Jharkhand and Another" in paragraph 16 has held that the only
consideration that should weigh with the appellate Court while
considering the plea for suspension of the sentence of life
imprisonment is that the convict should be in a position to point
out something very palpable or a very gross error in the
judgment of the Trial Court on the basis of which he is able to
make good his case that on this ground alone, his appeal
deserves to be allowed and he may be acquitted.
10. In this case considering the statement of the victim girl, we
are of the opinion that no such good ground is made out as
envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
"Chhotelal Yadav" (supra).
11. Further, we find that the custody is only for about seven
years and the sentence is for imprisonment for remainder of
natural life.
12. Thus, we are not inclined to release this appellant on bail.
13. I.A. No. 15364 of 2025 is dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Tanuj/-
