Jharkhand High Court
Sachidanand Mishra @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1335 of 2017
Sachidanand Mishra @ Sachchidanand Mishra --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kailash Prasad Deo
Through: Video Conferencing
---
For the Appellant: Mr. Gajendra Pd. Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Praveen Kr. Appu, A.P.P
---
06 / 18.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Gajendra Prasad Roy and
learned counsel for the State Mr. Praveen Kumar Appu, Additional Public
Prosecutor on the renewed prayer for bail made by this appellant through I.A.
No. 3568/2021.
2. Appellant along with three others stand convicted for the offence
punishable under sections 302/34, 364/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and sections 27 and 35 of the Arms Act vide impugned judgment of conviction
dated 18.09.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 94/2007 & 63/2008 by the Court
of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Godda and they have been sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and
default sentence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous
imprisonment for seven years along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and default
sentence under sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code: rigorous
imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and default
sentence under section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-
each and default sentence under section 27/35 of the Arms Act vide impugned
order of sentence dated 25.09.2018.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Gajendra Prasad Roy prays for
grant of bail on the ground that the appellant has remained in custody since
09.06.2010 i.e. more than 11 years and 02 months till date. He further submits
that other co-convicts have already been enlarged on bail. As such, appellant
may also be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence
4. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Praveen Kumar Appu, Additional
Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. He submits that since this appellant is
the main assailant in commission of this offence, he may not be enlarged on
bail.
5. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into the
facts and circumstances of the case including the period of custody undergone
by this appellant till date, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by
suspending his sentence during pendency of this appeal. Accordingly,
Appellant, above named, shall be released on bail, during pendency of this
appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional
Sessions Judge-III, Godda in Sessions Trial No. 94/2007 & 63/2008 on the
following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors shall be the deponent / pairvikar of the present
interlocutory application namely Abhyda Nanad Jha, S/o Anand Jha, R/o
village Lakramara P.O. Godda (Lakramara) P.S. Lakramara, District Godda
who has furnished photocopy of his UID Card before this Court in the
interlocutory application.
Office is directed to send photocopy of his UID Card to the trial court to
verify the authenticity of the bailor.
(i) Another bailor shall be brother of the appellant.
(ii) Appellant as well as his bailor shall not change the address without prior
permission of the court below.
(iii) The Civil Surgeon, Godda is directed to medically examine the appellant
at the time of his release and if he is found Corona negative, he shall be released
and if he is found Corona positive, he shall be taken for quarantine.
I.A. No. 3568/2021 is allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J)
Ranjeet/
