The court determined that the appellant should not be granted bail during appeal due to the serious nature of the alleged crime and victim's vulnerability.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

6 03-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2. The State has been represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. Records have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 12.09.2023 and sentenced vide order dated 16.09.2023 in connection with POCSO Case No. 03 of 2023, arising out of Dandari P.S. Case No. 63 of 2021, passed by the learned Exclusive Special Court (POCSO Act)-cum-6th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai for the offences under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short the ‘IPC’) and Section 3 /4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short the ‘POCSO Act’). He has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 366-A of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under /4(2) of the POCSO Act. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

4. The prosecution case is based on the written information, dated 09.07.2021, given by the informant, who happens to be the brother of the victim. He has alleged that on 03.07.2021, when he was busy in the operation of his mother at the clinic of Dr. Dharmendra Kumar at Begusarai, he got an information that Manish Mahton (appellant) along with others enticed away his sister, aged about 15 years. It is further alleged that then he came back to his house and got information about the occurrence from the local people. Thereafter, when he went to the house of the accused persons to inquire about the same, the accused persons abused, threatened and also tried to assault him.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of some dispute over payment of wages.

6. For a prima facie view, we have perused the materials available on the record.

7. The victim has been examined as P.W. 5. She has stated that the appellant had allured her, called her to his house and from there, she was taken to Samastipur and from Samastipur, she was taken to Delhi and then to Panipat. She has stated that the appellant had taken her away on the pretext of marrying her, but she came to know that he was a married person and, therefore, she refused to marry him, but, thereafter, the appellant was forcing her to marry and when she refused, then she was confined in a room. She has further alleged that the appellant had committed wrong act with her.

8. The age of the victim has been assessed between 14 - 16 years.

9. Having regard to the materials available on the record that the appellant is a married person and he had allured and taken away the victim (P.W. 5) and then committed wrong act with her, we are of the opinion that the appellant would not deserve suspension of sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal.

10. The prayer is refused.

11. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only prima facie and tentative for the purpose of suspension of sentence and bail only, which would not cause prejudice to either parties.

12. If the appeal is not listed within one year from today for hearing, the appellant would be at liberty to file an application seeking early hearing of the appeal.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)