High Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C (now Section 415 B.N.S.S), 2023, against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar, in Special Sessions Trial POCSO No. 8 of 2018; State versus Ram Jeet, arising out of Case Crime No. 161 of 2017, relating to Police Station Bheeti, District Ambedkar Nagar.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.10.2017, an F.I.R under sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, has been lodged by the complainant mentioning that her 6 year old daughter was enticed by the appellant who had committed dushkarm with her. The Police, after investigation, has filed the chargesheet under Sections 354 I.P.C and Section 7/8 POCSO by dropping the sections mentioned in the F.I.R. The appellant has been convicted by the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2024, under Section 354 I.P.C read with section 7/8 POCSO and was awarded a punishment of imprisonment of 4 years with a fine of Rs. 8 thousand and in case, the fine is not deposited, one month further simple imprisonment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence on record for an offence under Section 354 I.P.C read with section 7/8 POCSO Act. The basis of passing the conviction and sentencing the appellant is mainly on the statement of the prosecutrix, wherein she has stated that dushkarm was committed by the appellant, but during the investigation, it was not found and the chargesheet has not been filed under Section 376 I.P.C and the same has been filed under Section 354 I.P.C, and except that, there is no other material to establish that any such incident had occurred and such a statement and incident is not accepted or not found to be correct by the investigating agency at the time of filing of the chargesheet and framing of the charge by the trial court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the paper book of the case has yet not been prepared. It is further submitted that during the trial, the appellant was on bail and he had not violated any of the condition of the bail order.

6. It is further submitted that the applicant had already been in jail for a period of about 18 months i.e during the trial and after the passing of the conviction order, so out of 4 years of imprisonment, the applicant had already undergone 18 months of imprisonment and he is still languishing in jail.

7. He further submitted that the appellant has no criminal history except the present case in which he has falsely been implicated.

8. He further submitted that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail during pendency of the appeal, he will not misuse the liberty granted by this Court and shall assist the Court in expeditious disposal of the appeal and prays for release of the appellant on bail.

9. Learned A.G.A though opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant but has very fairly drawn the attention of the court towards the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, wherein she denied to recognise the appellant and did not answer any other question, which the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 is unable to dispute.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, prima facie it appears that except the statement of the victim and the statement given by her parents, i.e. P.W-1 and P.W.-3, on the basis of the incident informed by the victim, no other material had been found against the appellant. It is also seen from the judgment that in para-10, it has been mentioned that before the doctor who had conducted the medical examination, the statement of the victim was recorded where she denied all the allegations made against the appellant in the F.I.R as well as in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, thus it is a fit case for grant of bail.

11. Let the appellant/applicant namely Ram Jeet, convicted and sentenced in Special Sessions Trial POCSO No. 8 of 2018; State versus Ram Jeet, arising out of Case Crime No. 161 of 2017, relating to Police Station Bheeti, District Ambedkar Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) 50% of the fine imposed by the trial court shall remain stayed on the condition that 50% of the fine so imposed by the trial Court shall be deposited by the appellant/applicant within 2 weeks of actual release of the appellant/applicant from prison. (ii) The appellant/applicant shall cooperate in the early disposal of this appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The appellant/applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

13. The trial court is directed to transmit the photo copies of personal bond and bond of sureties filed by the appellant/applicant to this Court at the earliest.

14. Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

15. The realization of half of the fine awarded to the appellant shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal.

16. The appellants would be entitled to get the benefit of this order only after deposit of 50% of amount of fine and subject to the deposit of fine, the execution of sentence shall remain suspended. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 DiVYa

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C (now Section 415 B.N.S.S), 2023, against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar, in Special Sessions Trial POCSO No. 8 of 2018; State versus Ram Jeet, arising out of Case Crime No. 161 of 2017, relating to Police Station Bheeti, District Ambedkar Nagar.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.10.2017, an F.I.R under sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, has been lodged by the complainant mentioning that her 6 year old daughter was enticed by the appellant who had committed dushkarm with her. The Police, after investigation, has filed the chargesheet under Sections 354 I.P.C and Section 7/8 POCSO by dropping the sections mentioned in the F.I.R. The appellant has been convicted by the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2024, under Section 354 I.P.C read with section 7/8 POCSO and was awarded a punishment of imprisonment of 4 years with a fine of Rs. 8 thousand and in case, the fine is not deposited, one month further simple imprisonment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence on record for an offence under Section 354 I.P.C read with section 7/8 POCSO Act. The basis of passing the conviction and sentencing the appellant is mainly on the statement of the prosecutrix, wherein she has stated that dushkarm was committed by the appellant, but during the investigation, it was not found and the chargesheet has not been filed under Section 376 I.P.C and the same has been filed under Section 354 I.P.C, and except that, there is no other material to establish that any such incident had occurred and such a statement and incident is not accepted or not found to be correct by the investigating agency at the time of filing of the chargesheet and framing of the charge by the trial court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the paper book of the case has yet not been prepared. It is further submitted that during the trial, the appellant was on bail and he had not violated any of the condition of the bail order.

6. It is further submitted that the applicant had already been in jail for a period of about 18 months i.e during the trial and after the passing of the conviction order, so out of 4 years of imprisonment, the applicant had already undergone 18 months of imprisonment and he is still languishing in jail.

7. He further submitted that the appellant has no criminal history except the present case in which he has falsely been implicated.

8. He further submitted that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail during pendency of the appeal, he will not misuse the liberty granted by this Court and shall assist the Court in expeditious disposal of the appeal and prays for release of the appellant on bail.

9. Learned A.G.A though opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant but has very fairly drawn the attention of the court towards the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, wherein she denied to recognise the appellant and did not answer any other question, which the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 is unable to dispute.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, prima facie it appears that except the statement of the victim and the statement given by her parents, i.e. P.W-1 and P.W.-3, on the basis of the incident informed by the victim, no other material had been found against the appellant. It is also seen from the judgment that in para-10, it has been mentioned that before the doctor who had conducted the medical examination, the statement of the victim was recorded where she denied all the allegations made against the appellant in the F.I.R as well as in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, thus it is a fit case for grant of bail.

11. Let the appellant/applicant namely Ram Jeet, convicted and sentenced in Special Sessions Trial POCSO No. 8 of 2018; State versus Ram Jeet, arising out of Case Crime No. 161 of 2017, relating to Police Station Bheeti, District Ambedkar Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) 50% of the fine imposed by the trial court shall remain stayed on the condition that 50% of the fine so imposed by the trial Court shall be deposited by the appellant/applicant within 2 weeks of actual release of the appellant/applicant from prison. (ii) The appellant/applicant shall cooperate in the early disposal of this appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The appellant/applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

13. The trial court is directed to transmit the photo copies of personal bond and bond of sureties filed by the appellant/applicant to this Court at the earliest.

14. Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

15. The realization of half of the fine awarded to the appellant shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal.

16. The appellants would be entitled to get the benefit of this order only after deposit of 50% of amount of fine and subject to the deposit of fine, the execution of sentence shall remain suspended. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 DiVYa