The court found mutual consent in the relationship, questioning the basis of blackmail allegations, and granted bail due to the appellant's prolonged custody exceeding half of the sentence.

ORDER :

I.A. No. 12523 of 2024

The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence of the appellant in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2024 and order of sentence dated 05.08.2024 passed in S.T. 234 of 2018 arising out of Lalpur P.S. Case No. 300 of 2017 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi whereby and where under, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376/506 of the IPC and Section 66(D)/67/67(A) of the I.T Act and has been sentenced to undergo RI. for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 376 IPC and a default sentence of S.I. for 12 months; R.I. for 1 year under section 506 of IPC ; R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Sections 66(D) of the I.T. Act with a default sentence of S.I. for 6 months; R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 67 of the I.T. Act with a default sentence of S.I. for 6 months and R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 67(A) of the I.T. Act with a default sentence of S.I. for 6 months . All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no case is made out for the offence punishable under Sections 376/506 of the IPC and Section 66(D)/67/67(A) of the I.T Act even if the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses in its entirety be taken to be correct.

3. It has been submitted that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that relationship between the appellant and the victim was started sometime in the year 2011 but the F.I.R has been instituted on 25.09.2017.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant by referring to the conduct of the victim or her father or any other family member in not instituting the F.I.R for a period 6 years, has submitted that the relationship between the appellant and victim was consensual.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the basis of the conviction of the appellant are the photographs said to be obscene, which are marked as Ext. 4/1 and 4/2, which appear to have been taken by the victim herself and there is no photograph available on record said to be clicked by the present appellant for the purpose of black mailing.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the physical relationship between the appellant and the victim was based upon their mutual consent, as such, there is no ingredient of Section 376 of the I.P.C

7. Learned counsel for the appellant, in the alternative, has argued that even if offence punishable under Section 66(D)/67/67(A) of the I.T Act against the appellant is taken to be correct, for the maximum sentence of 3 years awarded by the learned Trial Court under the aforesaid section, appellant has already remained in custody for more than 1 ½ years, which is more than half of the sentence awarded under the aforesaid sections of the I.T. Act.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.

9. While on the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. as well as learned counsel representing the Informant has jointly opposed the prayer for bail.

10. It has been contended that it is a case where cogent evidence has been made available on the side of the prosecution both under Section 376/506 of the IPC as well as Section 66(D)/67/67(A) of the I.T Act.

11. It has also been contended by referring to Ext. 4/1, 4/2 and the testimony of the victim examined as P.W.3 during trial who has fully supporting the prosecution version, that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to submit that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and as such, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.

12. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone across the findings rendered by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment as also testimonies of the witnesses