MIKAL BHUJEL ALIAS RUBEN Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. S. K. Chettri, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Sate-Respondent. This is an application under Section 389 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for suspension of sentence and release of the Applicant on bail pending the Appeal before this Court. Vide order dated 08.10.2018 the Criminal Appeal has been admitted for hearing. On the same date, notice was issued on the present bail application. On 16.11.2018 the Applicant has filed an additional affidavit in support of the bail application. The State-Respondent has not filed any reply for the said application.

(2.) It is the contention of the Applicant that he was convicted under Section 3(a) of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and he has been sentenced for a period of 7 seven years for simple imprisonment vide order on sentence dated 22.08.2018. The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant would submit and it is also pleaded that during the trial the Applicant was released on bail with certain condition and that he has not violated any of the conditions laid down therein. It is also pleaded that pursuant to the impugned judgment dated 21.08.2018 and order on sentence dated 22.08.2018 the Applicant was taken into custody on 22.08.2018 and as such considering the time of arrest and release on bail during the trial and the time in custody after the order on sentence a total of 120 days has been served by the Applicant in custody as on date. The Applicant further pleads in the additional affidavit that he is the only earning member of the family as his father is already undergoing sentence and the incarceration is causing his family great harm and suffering. This Court has examined the impugned judgment and order on sentence.

(3.) The Applicant has already spent a period of 120 days in custody. The Appeal is admitted for hearing. The father of the Applicant being in jail, the Applicant seems the only male member of the family. No adverse remark against the Applicant has been brought on record by the prosecution. The Applicant had been on bail through trial. The State Respondent has not pleaded that the Applicant has misused the liberty so granted by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 vide order dated 23.06.2016.