GANESH TAMANG Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant on I.A. No.01 of 2023, which is an application filed under Sec. 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, the "Cr.P.C."), seeking suspension of the execution of the Judgment, dtd. 10/3/2023 and Order on Sentence, dtd. 13/3/2023, of the Court of Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), Gangtok, in Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case No.37 of 2019 and grant of bail.

(2.) The Learned Trial Court after convicting the Appellant under Sec. 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment of three years, heard the Appellant under Sec. 389(3)(i) of the Cr.P.C. Petition filed by the Convict/Appellant requesting that he be released on bail, to enable him to file an Appeal, before this High Court. Accordingly, vide Order of the Learned Trial Court, dtd. 13/3/2023, the Appellant was allowed to remain on bail for two months to enable him to file an Appeal. The two months bail period expired on 12/5/2023. On 11/5/2023, the Petition and the application under Sec. 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. were filed before this Court and thereafter on curing of defects it was re-submitted only on 29/5/2023 much later than the two months period granted by the Learned Trial Court. Hence, the Appellant was to have been in custody from 12/5/2023 but Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the Appellant is still at large and has not been taken into custody in clear violation of the Order of the Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), Gangtok.

(3.) The submissions of the Learned Public Prosecutor for the State-Respondent and those of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant are taken into consideration, whereby the facts of the case as detailed above have been brought to light.