The conviction under Section 363 IPC was not supported by sufficient evidence as the victim voluntarily accompanied the appellant, warranting bail due to the bailable nature of the offense.

JUDGMENT :

NAVNEET KUMAR, J.

I.A. No. 100 of 2025

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP representing the State.

2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of sentence of the appellant by enlarging him on bail during pendency of the instant criminal appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 02.09.2024 passed in Special POCSO Case No.18 of 2024 arising out of Dhansar P.S. Case No.256 of 2023 by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Dhanbad whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment for one month.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is three years for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC and he is in custody since 22.12.2023.

4. Further, it has also been submitted on behalf of the appellant that no ingredient of Section 363 of IPC is attracted as evident categorically in unequivocal words in the testimonies of the victim PW-1 who says in paragraph one of her deposition that the appellant came to her school and she accompanied him to bus-stand Dhanbad and thereafter both went to Ranchi and from Ranchi went to Puna and from Puna they went to Nagpur where her father Nandu Rajak came along with police and thereafter she came back to Dhanbad and further in para 2, she stated that the appellant did not commit any wrong with her and in view of such statements of the victim during the course of the trial, ingredients that fasten the guilt of the appellant under Section 361 of the IPC are not fulfilled as per the definition of kidnapping which has been set out under Section 361 of IPC in order to convict him for the offence of kidnapping under Section 363 of the IPC.

5. It has further been pointed out that earlier statement of the victim PW-1 has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. also where there is no trace of any kind of kidnapping alleged to be committed by the appellant within the meaning of Section 363 of IPC.

6. Further, it has also been pointed out that Section 363 of IPC under which the appellant has been convicted is bailable in nature and he is languishing custody since 22.12.2023 and in this view of matter it is urged on behalf of the appellant that let the appellant be enlarged on bail by suspending the order of sentence.

7. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised by the appellant but did not controvert this fact that there is no use of any coercion, enticement or taking away by using force to take the victim by the appellant as evident from the deposition of the victim herself but he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC which is heinous offence and therefore he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

8. Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case including the depositions of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and other materials available on record.

9. In view of the persuasive submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is found just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail.

10. Accordingly, the appellant named above is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Dhanbad in connection with Special POCSO Case No.18 of 2024 arising out of Dhansar P.S. Case No.256 of 2023.

11. I.A. No. 100 of 2025 is allowed and as such disposed of.