Ardish Beg @ Raju vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4926 Jhar

                                 -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    I.A. No.6658 of 2021
                           In
             Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.87 of 2021

     Ardish Beg @ Raju                        ......      Appellant
                             Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                   .....    Respondent
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. K. S. Nanda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, P.P.

---------

               th
03/Dated: 20        December, 2021
I.A. No.6658 of 2021

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of ad-interim bail, to the appellant, during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 27.01.2021 and order of sentence dated 29.01.2021, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge - II, Ghatshila, in S.T. Case No.409 of 2016, whereby the appellant along with five other persons have been convicted for the offence under Sections 395 and 412 read with Section 35 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 7 years along with fine and default clause.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has remained in custody for nineteen months. Further, P.W.-3, who has identified the accused, has been shown in the police station and as such no reliance can be placed on the said identification. It has further been submitted that no recovery has been made from the conscious possession of the appellant. On the above facts, prayer for suspension of sentence has been made.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and it has been submitted that P.W.-3, in her cross examination, has specifically stated that no assistance has been given to her in the police station rather she has identified the convict herself before the police, in the T.I.P and in the dock also .

5. Considering the deposition of P.W.-3 and the nature of offence, I am not inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the appellant on bail, at this stage.

6. Accordingly, I.A. No.6658 of 2021 stands rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-