Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1381 (JHR)

Vikash Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2025-05-09

SANJAY PRASAD

body2025
JUDGMENT : (SANJAY PRASAD, J.) This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant challenging the judgment dated 07.02.2025 and Sentence dated 10.02.2025, passed in Sessions Trial No.12 of 2019, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, F.T.C., Ramgarh, by which the Appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 366-A of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 (Four) years and to pay the fine of Rs.2,000/-. I.A. No. 4298 of 2025 2. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed under Section 430 (1) of BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. 3. It is alleged that the appellant, namely Vikash Kumar, had enticed the minor girl of the Informant on 15.09.2018, while she had left her house for tuition at around 03.00 p.m. 4. Heard Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Sanat Kr. Jha, learned counsel for the State. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the victim girl had voluntarily gone with the appellant and remained in the house of the appellant for around 10 days and had made no complaint. She admitted during her cross- examination, at Para 13 and 14, that she had not raised any alarm while she was made to travel by Tempo firstly and then by the Bus and at Para 15 of her cross-examination she admitted that she had not made any complaint during the 10 days in village Guraju (In the State of Bihar), when she lived in the house of the Appellant. It is submitted that both sides are having love affair, however, on account of pressure of her family members, she has supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that there is no sign of physical assault on the person of the victim girl. It is submitted that the appellant has remained in custody during trial for around Three (03) months and after that since 07.02.2025, he is in custody i.e. for around six months in total, hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 6. It is submitted that there is no sign of physical assault on the person of the victim girl. It is submitted that the appellant has remained in custody during trial for around Three (03) months and after that since 07.02.2025, he is in custody i.e. for around six months in total, hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the Appellant has enticed the victim girl, i.e. P.W.3, who was a minor at the time of the occurrence. It is submitted that the P.W.1, who is the father of the victim girl had fully supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that other prosecution witnesses, i.e. P.W.2, P.W.4, namely Sushma Devi and Mukesh Tiwari respectively have also supported the prosecution case and hence, the prayer for bail may be rejected. 7. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and from perusal of Lower Court Records, it appears from the F.I.R. that the victim girl is said to have been enticed by the Appellant. 8. It reveals from the statement of victim girl, i.e. P.W.3, that she has stated that the occurrence has taken place on 05.09.2011, which appears to be a typographical error, because from the F.I.R. it appears that the occurrence took place on 15.09.2018 and he had taken her to Ramgarh by Auto and from there she was taken to the house of the Appellant, namely Vikash Kumar, by the Bus and she remained there for around 10 days and she had neither resisted nor made any complaint about the abduction against the Appellant. 9. It reveals that P.W.1, who is the father of the victim girl, has stated during his cross- examination that the Officer-in-Charge informed him when his daughter was found. He also stated that he was not acquainted with the appellant earlier. 10. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.7, i.e. the Doctor, namely Dr. Mahalaxmi Prasad, it appears that victim girl was not physically or sexually assaulted and the Doctor assessed the age of the victim girl in between 18 to 20 years. No injury was found on the private parts of the victim girl. 11. 10. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.7, i.e. the Doctor, namely Dr. Mahalaxmi Prasad, it appears that victim girl was not physically or sexually assaulted and the Doctor assessed the age of the victim girl in between 18 to 20 years. No injury was found on the private parts of the victim girl. 11. Considering the custody of the Appellant and the fact that the victim was of more than 16 years of age on the date of occurrence and she had not resisted while she was being taken to village Guraju (In the State of Bihar), this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence of the Appellant. 12. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the Appellant, namely Vikash Kumar, is hereby suspended during pendency of this Criminal Appeal and the Appellant, Vikash Kumar is directed to be released on Bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, F.T.C., Ramgarh in connection with Sessions Trial No.12 of 2019, arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No.377 of 2018. 13. Thus, I.A. No. 4298 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 293 of 2025 14. Issue Notice to the Informant.