RANCHI, India, Sept. 30 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Aug. 29:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 19.12.2022 and order of sentence dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Special Judge-POCSO Act, Dhanbad, in connection with Spl. (POCSO) Case No.61 of 2020 arising out of Saraidhela P.S Case No. 139 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- under section 4 of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo additional imprisonment of one month.

2. It is alleged that the appellant/applicant has committed rape upon the victim and as per the prosecution version the age of the victim has been assessed to be in between 17-18 years at the time of occurrence.

3. At the outset, it needs to mention here that earlier the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant/applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.03.2023 passed in I.A No.194 of 2023.

4. The present interlocutory application has been filed to renew the prayer for suspension of sentence on the ground of completion of more than half of the sentences by the applicant/appellant in judicial custody.

5. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant/appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case.

6. The sole ground taken for suspension of sentence of the applicant/appellant is that he has already remained in judicial custody for about five years and one month and, as such, he has completed more than half of the sentences out of the maximum sentence of 10 years inflicted to him as he has been in judicial custody since 20.07.2020.

7. While, on the other hand, Mr. Saket Kumar, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and submitted that earlier this Court has rejected the prayer of suspension of sentence of the appellant vide order dated 16.03.2023, but he has fair enough to submit that as per custody report, the appellant/applicant has completed about half of the sentence awarded to him.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment.

9. The sole ground taken on behalf of the applicant is that the appellant/applicant has completed half of sentence awarded to him.

10. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the appellant/applicant has been able to make out a case for suspension of sentence during pendency of this appeal in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Saudan Singh V. The State of Uttar Pradesh" reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259.

11. Accordingly, I.A. No.11124 of 2025 stands allowed.

12. In consequence thereof, the applicant, named above, is directed to be released on bail, during pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge-POCSO Act, Dhanbad, in connection with Spl. (POCSO)Case No.61 of 2020 arising out of Saraidhela P.S Case No. 139 of 2020.

13. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case on merit, since, the criminal appeal is lying pending before this Court for its consideration.

14. In view thereof, I.A. No.11124 of 2025 stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.