Jharkhand High Court
Kunwar Lakra @ Jhule vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.898 of 2020
---
Kunwar Lakra @ Jhule ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. K. S. Nanda, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.
---
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel
for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and
video qualities are good.
---
I.A. No.4344 of 2021
06/21.09.2021: The present interlocutory application has been filed for
suspension of sentence and release the petitioner on bail during the
pendency of the instant criminal revision.
The petitioner has been convicted for the offence under
Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 392 of the Indian
Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the
offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, vide order dated
28.04.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Simdega
in connection with Simdega P.S. Case No.68 of 2012 corresponding to
G.R. Case No.241 of 2012 (T.R. No.438 of 2015). Thereafter, the
petitioner has filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No.22 of 2015 in which
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega has confirmed the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.04.2015 vide
order dated 18.03.2017 and the appellate court has acquitted the
petitioner from Section 392 of the I.P.C. and held guilty for the offence
under Section 411 of the I.P.C.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist
that initially the FIR has been lodged against the unknown and after
investigation this petitioner has been charged under Sections 392 and
411 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted that from the
possession of this revisionist, a NOKIA A.G. Tel Mobile along with Sim
Nos.8294973522 and 9608872452 has been shown as a recovered
material which is not subject of robbery. Thus, the recovery of Mobile
Phone does not constitute an offence under Section 411 of the I.P.C. The
revisionist was all along in bail during the trial. He had surrendered on
19.03.2019 and remanded in this case to serve out the sentence on
01.07.2021. Before that the petitioner was in custody since 18.06.2012 to
13.02.2013 in the present case during trial. Hence, the revisionist has
remained in custody for about 10 months out of maximum sentence of
two years. On the above facts, the prayer for suspension of sentence of
petitioner has been prayed.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail.
In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is inclined to suspend the sentence of the petitioner and enlarge him 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 the
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Simdega in connection with
Simdega P.S. Case No.68 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.241 of
2012 (T.R. No.438 of 2015), subject to the condition that the petitioner
will submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhaar Card and also submit
his mobile number before the learned court below which he will always
keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without
prior permission of the court.
In the result, I.A. No.4344 of 2021 is, hereby, allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
