Deven Lohar @ Devendra Lohar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3229 Jhar

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2021
                                          ....

            Deven Lohar @ Devendra Lohar                        ....     Petitioner
                                          Versus
            The State of Jharkhand                               .... Opp. Party
                                          ....
             CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

             For the Petitioner              : Mr. Krishna Murari, Adv.
             For the State                   : Mr. S.K.Srivastava, APP
                                             ....

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

....

08/02.09.2021 I.A. No.3318 of 2021 The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for suspension of sentence, during pendency of the instant criminal revision petition.

The instant criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 19.12.2020 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Ghatshila in Criminal Appeal No.93/2020, who has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2020 passed by the ACJM, Ghatshila in G.R. Case No.359 of 2012, corresponding to T.R. No.52 of 2020 (Jadugora P.S. Case No.36 of 2012) whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-b) a of the Arms Act and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo S.I. for three months.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the maximum punishment awarded is two years and out of two years the petitioner has already served half of the sentence. On that ground, prayer for bail has been made.

Considering the nature of allegation and the fact that the petitioner has served half of the sentence, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of this petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail, 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 ACJM, Ghatshila in G.R. Case No.359 of 2012, corresponding to T.R. No.52 of 2020 (Jadugora P.S. Case No.36 of 2012), subject to the condition that the petitioner shall remain present before the Court as and when the case is taken up for hearing, failing which his bail bond shall be cancelled.

However, the court below before issuing the release order will satisfy himself regarding the fact that the petitioner has completed half of the sentence. If not, then no release order will be issued rather the matter will be reported to this Court.

I.A. No.3318 of 2021 stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/