Saroj Pradhan vs State Of Sikkim
2023 Latest Caselaw 76 Sikkim

             THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
                               (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
                                DATED : 12th October, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   SINGLE BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               I.A. No.01 of 2023 in Crl.A. No.21 of 2023
                Appellant/Petitioner             :        Saroj Pradhan

                                                              versus

                Respondent                       :        State of Sikkim
                      Application under Section 389(1) and (2)
                     of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Appearance
            Mr. N. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yozan Rai, Ms. Tara Devi
            Chettri, Advocates for the Petitioner.
              Mr. S. K. Chettri, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-
              Respondent.
        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      ORDER (ORAL)

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. Heard on I.A. No.01 of 2023 which is an application

under Section 389 (1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, filed by the Petitioner seeking to be enlarged on bail and

suspension of the sentence imposed on him.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner

submits that he has filed an Appeal before this Court assailing the

impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence, dated 17-08-2023,

passed by the Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), at

Gangtok, Sikkim, in ST (POCSO) Case No.21 of 2021 (State of

Sikkim vs. Saroj Pradhan). He submits that the Petitioner was

convicted under Section 9(m) of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, "POCSO Act, 2012"),

punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and

sentenced to five years simple imprisonment with fine of ₹ 5,000/-

(Rupees five thousand) only, with default clause of imprisonment.

The allegation therein was that he had kissed the minor victim.

That, the Petitioner was on bail throughout the course of trial and

Saroj Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim

did not violate the bail conditions. That, following his conviction he

has been in the correctional home (Central Prison) at Rongyek,

since 17-08-2023. That, he has elderly parents, his father being

aged about 75 years, while his mother is about 68 years old, who

are required to be taken care of by the Petitioner. That, pending

the Appeal before this Court he may be enlarged on bail

considering his conduct during the trial, where despite being on

bail he unfailingly appeared on all dates fixed. That, he shall also

abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court if enlarged

on bail. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on Suresh

Kumar and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi)1 wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court while referring to the decision of Bhagwan Rama

Shinde Gosai and Others vs. State of Gujarat2 held that when a

convicted person is sentenced for a fixed period and when he files

an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be

considered by the Appellate Court liberally, unless there are

exceptional circumstances.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor objects to the

prayer for bail and invited the attention of this Court to Suzanne

Louise Martin vs. State of Rajasthan and Another3, wherein the

Supreme Court while considering the release of the Appellant who

was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,

held that the perpetrator of the offence ought not to have been

released on bail. Hence, this Court also refrain from granting bail

to the Petitioner considering that he has been convicted of a sexual

offence against a minor, much like the offence in Suzanne Louise

Martin (supra).

(2001) 10 SCC 338

(1999) 4 SCC 421

(2009) 4 SCC 376

Saroj Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim

4. I have given due consideration to the submissions put

forth.

5. In view of the facts placed before me and considering

the conduct of the Petitioner, viz., that while on bail during trial he

continued to appear before the Learned Trial Court, I am of the

considered opinion that this is a fit case where the Petitioner can

be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions;

(i) The Petitioner shall furnish PB&SB of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only, each, with one solvent surety, to the satisfaction of the Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), at Gangtok, Sikkim.

(ii) He shall, however, not leave the station without the prior permission of the Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), at Gangtok, Sikkim.

(iii) He shall appear before this Court on all dates fixed.

(iv) Should the Petitioner fail to report to this Court on the dates fixed, his bail bonds stand cancelled and he shall be taken into custody forthwith.

6. Sentence imposed by the Learned Trial Court against

the Petitioner stands suspended till further orders.

7. The observations made hereinabove are only for the

purposes of the instant bail application and shall in no manner be

construed as findings on the merits of the Appeal.

8. I.A. No.01 of 2023 is allowed and disposed of

accordingly.

9. A copy of this Order be forwarded to the Learned Trial

Court for information and compliance.

10. Copy of this Order also be forwarded to the Jail

Authority at the Central Prison, Rongyek, for information.

( Meenakshi Madan Rai ) Judge 12-10-2023 Approved for reporting : Yes ds/sdl