Jharkhand High Court
Anuj Kullu vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 December, 2020
Author: Amitav K. Gupta
Bench: Amitav K. Gupta, Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No.5255 of 2020
In
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.903 of 2019
Anuj Kullu ... ... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Appellant : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mahtha, A.P.P.
---
I.A. No.5255 of 2020 07/11.12.2020: This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for suspension of sentence and grant of ad-interim bail to the appellant, during pendency of the instant appeal.
2. The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 363, 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 23/26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act, 2000 and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 370(4) of the I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and a fine amount of Rs.10,000/- on each count, in default thereof to suffer R.I. of 3 months.
3. Heard. The learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned APP. On perusal of testimony of the victim i.e. P.W.1, it transpires that she has stated that the appellant along with co-accused Salim had committed rape on her. She stated that her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Exhibite-2). On perusal of the 164 Cr.P.C statement it appears that she has not alleged that the appellant had committed rape on her. She was taken to Delhi by co-accused. The Doctor-P.W.6 examined the victim and she did not find any sign of recent sexual intercourse. On the basis of the radiological report the medical board has assessed the age of the victim between 17 to 18 years.
4. Considering contradictions in the statement of P.W.1 as recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her testimony, and taking into account, that the appellant has remained in jail custody for more than five years, we are inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the appellant on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Simdega, in Special (Pocso) Case No.10 of 2016, on the condition that the appellant shall deposit Rs.10,000/- as part of the fine amount in the court below.
5. As a result, I.A. No.5255 of 2020 is, hereby, allowed.
6. The appellant shall remain present before the Court, when the appeal is taken up for hearing, failing which his bail shall be cancelled.
(Amitav K. Gupta, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/Amar