Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Ram @ Chukiya vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 September, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 463 of 2020
Suresh Ram @ Chukiya ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
Through: Video Conferencing
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the respondent : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P.
---
8/27.09.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ajay Kumar
Singh and learned A.P.P. Mr. Suraj Verma on the prayer for
suspension of sentence of this appellant made through I.A. No.
4195 of 2021.
2. Sole appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable under
sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned
judgment dated 23.11.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 49 of
2018 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, FTC,
Bokaro and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten
years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and default sentence under Section
364 of the Indian Penal Code, by the impugned order of sentence
dated 25.11.2019.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the case of
the informant, brother of the victim (P.W. 3), the victim went out of
his house on 04.10.2017 and since then he is missing. His mobile
was also found switched off from 4.10.2017. Only on suspicion,
the appellant and his brother-in-law have been implicated in this
case. According to the informant, the victim had talked to the
appellant while leaving for Sindri. No one has last seen this
appellant in the company of the victim. The only material, even
assumingly that, can be made the basis for arraigning this appellant
for facing the trial is the reference of Mobile No. 7645840950 of
the victim in the call details record of the mobile number of the
appellant i.e. 7519874733. As per the statement of the
Investigating Officer, P.W. 8, it is submitted that on 04.10.2017
only three calls on this number have been made between 6.35 A.M.
to 12.50 P.M. The appellant has been convicted on mere suspicion
only account of certain calls made by this SIM number and that
said mobile was recovered from the house of the appellant. As per
the impugned order of sentence, it is apparent that the appellant
has no criminal antecedent. Appellant has remained in custody for
about four years since 12.10.2017, therefore, he may be enlarged
on bail by suspending his sentence.
4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer and submits that the
informant P.W. 3 has stated that the appellant and his brother-in-
law were having criminal history and that the victim had talked to
this appellant while leaving for Sindri on 04.10.2017. This fact is
corroborated from the call details report of the appellant obtained
by the Investigating Officer, P.W. 8. Considering the evidence of
other prosecution witnesses like P.W. 1, P.W. 4 wife of the victim
and P.W. 5 mother also, appellant's involvement in the crime is
duly established, therefore he may not be enlarged on bail.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the materials on record including the
period of custody undergone by him. On consideration of the
materials on record noted above in totality it appears that it is not a
case of last seen. As per the CDR of the mobile of the accused,
four calls are stated to have been made to the victim on 04.10.2017
between 6.35 A.M. to 7.45 A.M. However, as per the I.O. P.W.8,
the mobile number of victim was active till 12.50 P.M. on
4.10.2017 and calls were also made from 6 other mobile numbers.
6. The appellant doesn't seem to be having any criminal antecedent.
Considering all these facts and materials on record, we are inclined
to enlarge the appellant on bail by granting him the privilege of
suspension of sentence. Accordingly, appellant, named above, shall
be released on bail, during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned District & Additional
Sessions Judge-II, FTC, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 49/2018 with
the condition that the appellant and his bailors shall not change their
address or mobile numbers without permission of the learned Trial
Court.
7. Consequently, I.A. No. 4195 of 2021 stands allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit/
