Prahlad Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 781 Jhar

                                 -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  I.A. No.185 of 2021
                          In
            Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.376 of 2020

    Prahlad Mahto                             ......    Appellant

                             Versus
    The State of Jharkhand                    .....   Respondent
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P. For the Informant : Ms. Rashmi Lal, Advocate

---------

               th
06/Dated: 18        February, 2021

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

2. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.05.2020 passed in S.T. No. 110 of 2017 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge - IV, Bokaro, whereby the appellant along with co-accused have been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341/149, 323/149 and 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for maximum period of five years for the offence under Section 325 of I.P.C and a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is case and counter case between the parties for the same occurrence. It is submitted that co-convict namely, Ratan Mahto, has been granted bail by this Court by order dated 01.10.2010 and the case of the appellant is similarly situated to that of co-accused.

4. Learned A.P.P., assisted by the learned counsel for the informant has opposed but has not controverted the fact that in similar circumstance co-convict namely, Ratan Mahto has been admitted to bail.

5. Heard. On perusal of the materials on record it appears that the injured Nirmal Mahto has not named the

appellant as the person who assaulted him. In similar circumstance co-convict has been granted bail, accordingly I am inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the appellant on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge - IV, Bokaro, in connection with Sessions Trial No.110 of 2017, on the condition that the appellant shall deposit Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand), as part of the fine amount, in the court below.

6. The appellant shall remain present before the Court, when the appeal is taken up for hearing, failing which his bail shall be cancelled.

7. I.A. No.185 of 2021 stands allowed.

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) Chandan/-