Nage @ Nageshwar Uraon vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1417 Jhar

                                  -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    I.A. No.4703 of 2021
                            In
             Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1011 of 2019

     1.   Nage @ Nageshwar Uraon
     2.   Jageshwar Uraon
     3.   Ranthu Uraon
     4.   Jago Uraon
     5.   Dilip Uraon
     6.   Rajesh Uraon
     7.   Kule @ Khule Uraon                 ......     Appellants
                             Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                  .....   Respondent
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Appellants : Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the State : Mr. M. K. Mishra, A.P.P.

---------

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.

---------

               th
14/Dated: 08        April, 2022
I.A. No.4703 of 2021

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of ad-interim bail, to the appellant No.5 namely, Dilip Uraon, during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 22.08.2019 and order of sentence dated 27.08.2019, passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Chatra, in S.T. No.108 of 2016, whereby all the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- each with a default clause.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant No.5 that he has remained in custody for more than three years out of the nine years punishment which has been awarded by the trial court under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted that the allegation is general and omnibus in nature upon all the accused

persons. It has further been submitted that a scuffle had taken place between the parties in a marriage ceremony.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.

5. Considering the period of custody of the appellant No.5, I am inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the appellant No.5 on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, 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 Sessions Judge, Chatra, in Sessions Trial No.108 of 2016, subject to the condition that the appellant No.5 will remain present before the Court when the appeal is taken up for hearing, failing which his bail shall be cancelled.

6. I.A. No.4703 of 2021 stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-