Jharkhand High Court
Lutan @ Binod @ Lambu Bhuiya vs Vrs on 31 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 42 of 2021
Lutan @ Binod @ Lambu Bhuiya ............Appellant
Vrs.
The State of Jharkhand ......... Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P.
03/31.08.2021 Heard Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl.P.P. for the State on the prayer for
suspension of sentence of the appellant made through I.A. No. 1433 of
2021.
This appellant along with Haidar Khan and Sobrati Ansari have
been convicted for the offence punishable under section 412 of the I.P.C,
while all the accused persons including one Nabi Mian have been
acquitted of the charge under Section 395 of the I.P.C. by the impugned
judgment dated 28.01.2020 passed in Sessions Trial No. 142 of 2017 by
the court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro and
all the three convicts have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and
a fine of Rs.10,000/- each with default sentence each by the impugned
order of sentence of the same date.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is in
custody since 26.01.2017. As per the statement of the Investigating
Officer, P.W.6, on the confession of this appellant (Ext.4), one tab was
recovered. It is submitted that co-convict Haidar Khan and Sobrati Ansari,
on whose confession one mobile and one revolver, bullet, gold ornament
respectively were recovered, have been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.08.2020 passed in Criminal
Appeal (DB) No. 352 of 2020 (Annexure-1) to the instant I.A. The case of
the appellant stands on similar footing and as such the prosecution has
completely failed to establish the ingredients of Section 395 I.P.C. against
the accused persons altogether. Further it is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellant that from perusal of the impugned order of sentence, it
would appear that there is no criminal antecedent of this appellant.
Learned Spl.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that
there is a confession of this appellant leading to recovery of articles,
which is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The articles
were identified in the T.I.P before the Circle Officer., Chas, P.W.5.
However, he is not in a position to dispute that other co-convicts, on
whose confession also certain articles were recovered, have been enlarged
on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and having taken note of the materials relied upon from the lower
court record including the fact that two other similarly situated co-
convicts namely Haidar Khan and Sobrati Ansari have been enlarged on
bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.
352 of 2020, we are inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of
sentence to the appellant.
Accordingly, the appellant, named above, during the pendency of
this appeal, shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each, to the satisfaction of learned District and Additional Sessions
Judge-II, Bokaro in connection with Sessions Trial No. 142 of 2017 with
the condition that he and his bailors shall not change their address or
mobile number without permission of the learned Trial Court.
I.A. No. 1433 of 2021 stands allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
A.Mohanty
