Ramchandra Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1072 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             I.A. No. 3582 of 2020
                   in
             Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 337 of 2020
                         ...

Ramchandra Singh                       ....       Appellant
                         -V e r s u s-
The State of Jharkhand                      ..... Respondent
                         ...
                         with
             Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 336 of 2020
                         ...
Suresh Singh                           ....            Appellant
                         -V e r s u s-
The State of Jharkhand                      .....      Respondent

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

For the Appellant : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, APP. (in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 337 of 2020) : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, P.P. (in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 336 of 2020) ...

I.A. No. 3582 of 2020 ...

07/03.03.2021

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 appellant, during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.02.2020, passed by the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Koderma (Fast Track Court for Offence against Woman) in S.T. No.55 of 2015, whereby the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 498 A, 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphatically argued that the appellant is the father-in-law and he has been falsely implicated on account of land dispute amongst the brothers of the informant's husband. Learned counsel also submits that D.W. 3, who is the 'Bhagini' of the informant, has categorically stated that the allegation of committing rape against the appellant is false. It is submitted that the appellant is aged more than 75 years and he is in custody for nearly 16 months.

4. Learned P.P. has opposed the prayer and submitted that the victim has been examined as P.W. 11 and the witnesses, who were the members of the 'Panchayati' as well as P.W. 9, the husband of the informant, have supported the allegation that the appellant had entered the room of P.W.11 and attempted to commit rape on her.

5. Heard. In view of the testimony of P.W. 11, P.W. 9 and the witnesses, who were the members of the 'Panchayati', I am not inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the appellant on bail, at this stage.

6. In the result, I.A. No. 3582 of 2020 stands rejected.

...

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 337 of 2020 ...

1. Office to list the appeal under the heading 'For hearing' and if the appeal is not taken up for hearing by October, 2021, the appellant is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

...

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 336 of 2020 ...

1. On the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant, Office to list the appeal under the appropriate heading on 12.03.2021.

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) APK