Tarkeshwar Mahto @ Roshan Lal ... vs Vrs
2021 Latest Caselaw 2624 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 460 of 2017
    Tarkeshwar Mahto @ Roshan Lal Mahto                 ............Appellant
                             Vrs.
    The State of Jharkhand                              ......... Respondent
                                  .......

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.

09/29.07.2021 Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State on the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant made through I.A. No. 1481 of 2021.

The appellant- husband of the victim along with three other accused persons; mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law of the victim have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the I.P.C by the impugned judgment of conviction dated 15.02.2017 passed in S.T. Case No. 165 of 2013 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, F.T.C., Bokaro and the present appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years, while the other convicts have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years by the order of sentence dated 17.02.2017.

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has primarily taken the ground of custody for pressing the prayer for bail. It is submitted that earlier the prayer for bail was rejected vide order dated 17.06.2019 taking into account that he had not completed even half of the custody against the sentence of 10 years. It is however stated by referring to para 5 of the instant I.A. that appellant has remained in custody during trial since 11.01.2013 to 11.12.2013 and after his conviction he is in jail custody since 15.02.2017 i.e., more than 5 years 4 months by now. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail in view of Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer.

However, having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case including the period of custody for more than 5 years 4 months and odd undergone by this appellant, we are inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant.

Accordingly, the appellant above named, 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 Additional Sessions Judge-II, F.T.C., Bokaro in connection with S.T. Case No. 165 of 2013 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. 1481 of 2021 stands allowed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

A.Mohanty