Sikkim High Court
Shri Nandu Ram Rai vs State Of Sikkim on 2 April, 2025
Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai
Bench: Meenakshi Madan Rai
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Dated : 2nd April, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.A. No.01 of 2025 in Crl. A. No.06 of 2025
Applicant/Petitioner : Nandu Ram Rai
versus
Respondent : State of Sikkim
Application under Section 389(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. N. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pradeep Tamang and Ms.
Tara Devi Chettri, Advocates for the Applicant/Petitioner.
Mr. Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia, Public Prosecutor with Mr. Yadev
Sharma and Mr. S. K. Chettri, Additional Public Prosecutors for
the State-Respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER (ORAL)
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. Heard on I.A. No.01 of 2025, which is an application
filed by the Applicant, under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, the "Cr.P.C."), seeking enlargement
on bail and suspension of sentence imposed on him.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant submits that,
the Applicant was convicted by the Court of the Learned Special
Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), Gangtok, Sikkim, in ST (POCSO) Case
No.38 of 2021 (State of Sikkim vs. Nandu Ram Rai), under Sections
9(c), 9(f), 9(l) and 9(m), all punishable under Section 10 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter,
the "POCSO Act"), vide the Judgment dated 06-02-2025 and Order
on Sentence dated 07-02-2025. That, both are being impugned by
an Appeal filed before this Court. Walking this Court through the
facts of the case, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
Applicant was employed as a Government primary school teacher,
Nandu Ram Rai vs. State of Sikkim
while the alleged victim is a student of the said school. That, in
August 2018, the victim and some of her school mates disclosed to
their parents and guardians that the Applicant had been molesting
them for quite some time and had threatened them with corporal
punishment, if they disclosed the incidents to anyone.
Consequently, on 23-08-2018, parents and guardians of the
affected students, lodged the FIR before the concerned Police
Station, which led to the registration of Case No.30/2018 on the
same date, under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter, the "IPC") and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, against
the Applicant. Although a single Charge-Sheet was filed for a total
of eleven victims, all below the age of twelve years, however it was
bifurcated by the Learned Trial Court into eleven individual cases.
On completion of trial, the Prosecution having examined twenty-
five witnesses in support of their case the conviction and Order on
Sentence (supra) were pronounced. That, from the eleven cases
the Applicant was acquitted in three cases but convicted in eight
other matters arising from the same FIR, including the instant
matter. Bail applications have been filed individually in all eight
matters. That, the Applicant is innocent and has not committed
the alleged offence and since his incarceration at State Central
Prison, Rongyek, Gangtok, on conviction, he has become
unrecognizable as he is now ailing from severe hypertension and
diabetes. He is the only earning member in his family, has no
criminal antecedents whatsoever and is a permanent resident of
Pakyong District, Sikkim, where his family is settled. That, except
the alleged victims no children from the same class were furnished
as witnesses by the Prosecution. That, during the course of trial
before the Learned Trial Court, the Applicant appeared consistently
Nandu Ram Rai vs. State of Sikkim
and unfailingly on all dates fixed and made no attempt to abscond,
jump bail or misuse the bail conditions. Hence, in light of the
grounds furnished the Applicant be enlarged on bail, he shall abide
by all the orders and conditions imposed by this Court should he be
so enlarged.
3. Resisting the Petition for bail, Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the victims of the depravity of the Applicant were all
minor girls being his students and all below the age of twelve
years. That, he is not the sole earning member in his family as his
son is working in the same primary school, where the Applicant
was accused of having molested the victims and his wife runs a
shop in the village. That, there are no documents to support the
claim of his ailments and in view of the nature of offences and the
absence of medical documents as also the fact that after the FIR
was lodged the Investigating Officer had a difficult time locating
and arresting the Applicant, the Petition for bail be rejected.
4. I have considered the rival submissions advanced and
perused the documents before me.
5. Admittedly, the Applicant was on bail during the entire
course of the trial and appeared consistently before the Learned
Trial Court. No attempts were made by him at absconsion, besides
which he is a permanent resident of Pakyong District, has his home
and hearth there, which he has no reason to abandon and had no
criminal antecedents prior to the instant matter. In light of the
facts and circumstances advanced before this Court today, I am of
the considered view that this is a fit case where the Applicant can
be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions;
(i) The Applicant shall furnish Personal Bond of ₹ 50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand) only, with one solvent surety in
Nandu Ram Rai vs. State of Sikkim
the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court of the
Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), at Gangtok,
Sikkim.
(ii) He shall report to the Station House Officer (SHO),
Ranipool Police Station, Gangtok, on the first and fourth
Saturday of every month by 04.00 p.m.
(iii) He shall, however not leave the Pakyong District or the
State without the prior permission of the Court of the
Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), at Gangtok,
Sikkim.
(iv) He shall also appear before this Court on all dates fixed
for hearing of the Appeal.
(v) Should he fail to report to this Court on the dates fixed,
or before the SHO, Ranipool Police Station, his bail bonds
shall stand cancelled and he shall be taken into custody
forthwith.
6. The sentence imposed by the Learned Trial Court, vide
the impugned Order on Sentence dated 07-02-2025, in ST
(POCSO) Case No.38 of 2021 (State of Sikkim vs. Nandu Ram Rai),
against the Applicant accordingly stands suspended till further
orders.
7. The observations made while disposing of this I.A. is in
no manner to be construed as findings on the merits of the Appeal.
8. I.A. No.01 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of
accordingly.
9. A copy of this Order be forwarded to the Learned Trial
Court immediately for information and compliance.
10. A copy of this Order also be forwarded to the Jail
Authority, State Central Prison, Rongyek, Gangtok and to the SHO,
Ranipool, Police Station, Gangtok, for information and compliance.
( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge
02-04-2025
Approved for reporting : Yes
sdl
