Kishun Kumar Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3695 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Criminal Revision No. 304 of 2021
                                 -----------

            Kishun Kumar Prasad                                                .....Petitioner
                                             Versus
            The State of Jharkhand                                             ....Opposite Party

                Coram:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
                                   -----
                For the Petitioner       : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
                                           Mr. Sunil Kr. Mahto, Adv.
                For the Opp. Party       : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, P. P.
                                         .....

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

........

I.A. No. 4980 of 2020 07/29.09.2021 The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for suspension of the sentence, during pendency of the instant criminal revision petition.

The instant criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 27.02.2021 passed by Sri Rajesh Sinha, Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bermo at Tenughat in Cr. Appeal No. 91 of 2019 whereby the appeal preferred by the present petitioner has been dismissed by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.05.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in G. R. Case No. 750 of 2012 (T.R. No. 72 of 2019) arising out of B.T.P.S. Case No. 63 of 2012 whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for six months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and for the offence under Section 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default clause.

It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a driver and posted in the Damodar Valley Corporation. He was driving the official Hydra Vehicle. It has been alleged that due to rash and negligent driving, death of one person has taken place. It has been submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. On the above fact, prayer for suspension of sentence has been made.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of this petitioner, during pendency of the instant criminal revision petition. Accordingly, the petitioner named above 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 Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with G. R. Case No. 750 of 2012 (T.R. No. 72 of 2019) arising out of B.T.P.S. Case No. 63 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.

I.A. No. 4980 of 2020 stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J) kamlesh/