IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.872 of 2025 …

Deepak Yadav, aged about 24 years, S/o Karu Yadav, Resident of Vill:-Bagduma, P.O. & P.S.-Bounsi, District-Banka, Bihar ……Appellant Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. (Victim) XXX, D/o XXX through her guardian (Mother/Informant), W/o XXX, R/o Vill.-XXX, P.O. & P.S.-

Basantrai, Dist. Godda ……Respondent -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD -----

For the Appellant : Mrs. Vani Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P For the Victim : Ms. Priyanka Boby, Advocate ……

Order No.05/13^th January 2026 I.A. No.15568 of 2025

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the judgment of conviction dated 04.09.2025 and sentence dated 10.09.2025 passed by Sri Kumar Pawan, learned Special Judge (POCSO), Godda in Special (POCSO) Case No.25/2024 arising out of Basantrai P.S. Case No.11/2023 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 366 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I.

for a period of four (04) years and to pay the fine of Rs.10,000/-

2. I.A. No. 15568 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

3. As per the F.I.R, the appellant is alleged to have taken away the victim girl (i.e. the minor daughter of the Informant) for the purpose of marrying with her.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and had not committed any offence. It is submitted that there was love affair between the girl and the appellant of this case. It is submitted that the victim girl has not supported the allegation during her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and during evidence while being examined as PW-6 during trial. It is submitted that victim girl is living in the house of the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 04.09.2025 and earlier also he was in custody for some period during trial and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer of bail of the appellant. It is submitted that there is a direct allegation against the appellant for abducting the minor victim girl for the purpose of marriage. It is submitted that PW-3 is the mother of the victim girl and she has supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that PW-1 is also the relative of the victim girl and PW-5 is the uncle of the victim girl and they have also supported the prosecution case that the victim girl had been kidnapped by the appellant, his mother and his sister. It is submitted that victim girl is minor and her evidence may not be considered. It is submitted that PW-7 is the I.O. of this case who has also corroborated and supported the prosecution case and hence the prayer of the bail for the appellant may be rejected.

7. None appears on behalf of the Informant despite service of notice upon the father of the victim girl X on 06.11.2025 and for which the copy of Addhar card of father of the victim girl X has been enclosed in the Counter Affidavit filed by the learned A.P.P on 20.11.2025.

8. However, Ms. Priyanka Boby, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the victim herself and submitted that victim is living in the house of the appellant.

9. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it appears from the F.I.R that appellant is alleged to have taken the victim girl by inducing her for performing marriage with her.

10. It appears that PW-3 is the Informant in this case and though she has not been declared hostile by the prosecution but she has admitted during her examination-in-chief that the police has recovered the victim girl from the house of the appellant Deepak Yadav. The victim girl did not agree to go with her rat