Jharkhand High Court
Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Prasad vs Vrs on 28 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 156 of 2026
Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Prasad, aged about 24 years, son of Rajendra
Mahto (AI), resident of village: Kesra. P.O. and P.S. Tatijharia, District
Hazaribag. .......... Appellant(s)
Vrs.
The State of Jharkhand ....... Respondent(s)
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P. I.A. No. 2245 of 2026 03/28.04.2026 The instant interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence of the appellant during pendency of this appeal.
2. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 354,323,341 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for Four years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and a default sentence of S.I. for three months u/s 8 of the POCSO Act; R.I. for One year u/s 323 of the IPC and S.I. for One month u/s 341 of the IPC in connection with judgment of conviction dated 27.01.2026 and order of sentence dated 31.01.2026 passed in POCSO Case No. 111 of 2021 arising out of Tatijharia P.S. Case No. 57 of 2021 by the court of learned A.S.J.-III-cum-Special Judge POCSO, Hazaribag.
3. It has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that although charge has been framed under Section 376(3)/511,341,323, 354(B), 506, 376(3) of the IPC; Section 4(2), r/w 18, 6 and 8of the POCSO Act, 67(B) of the I.T. Act, but the appellant has been convicted under Section 354, 323, 341 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. It has been submitted that the entire story has been disbelieved. Once the veracity of the evidence of the proxecutrix has not been accepted then the entire punishment is bad in law because that is contrary to the evidence available on record.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
1 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 156 of 2026
5. Considering the above fact, I am inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by suspending his sentence during pendency of this appeal.
6. Accordingly, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- ( Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.S.J.-III-cum- Special Judge POCSO, Hazaribag in connection with POCSO Case No. 111 of 2021 arising out of Tatijharia P.S. Case No. 57 of 2021, subject to the condition that the appellant will remain present before the Court when the appeal is taken up for hearing, failing which, his bail shall be cancelled.
7. I.A. No.2245 of 2026 stands allowed and accordingly disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) 28.04.2026 A. Mohanty Uploaded ____/____/2026 2 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 156 of 2026