Hakim Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1469 Jhar

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 44 of 2022
                                     ....

             Hakim Mahto                              ...... Appellant
                                Versus
             The State of Jharkhand                   ...... Respondent
                                   -----
             CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
                                   -----
             For the Appellant       : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
                                     Mr. Munga Lal Kr. Chitra, Adv.
             For the State           : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha,A.P.P.
                                         .....
             I.A. No. 1039 of 2022
04/11.04.2022        Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
            for the State.

2. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the appellant for bail during pendency of the present criminal appeal.

3. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 13.12.2021 and order of sentence dated 13.12.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh in S. T. No. 186 of 2015 corresponding to G. R. No. 1173 of 2014 arising out of Patratu (Barkakana) P. S. Case No. 66 of 2014 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under 452/324/307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment further sentence to undergo S.I. for three months and R.I. for three years under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for three years under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and also a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment further undergo S.I. for three months.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellant and the informant are own gotias and

they are having prior land dispute. It is submitted that there is contradiction in the FIR and the statement of the witnesses examined during trial. It is submitted that although informant has stated that he was assaulted on the neck by the appellant, however the medical report shows that he was not admitted and the medical report at Ext.-3 does not show the date of treatment to the injured by doctor. It is further submitted that Investigation Officer has been examined as P. W.-6 and who has stated that he has not seized the bloodstained cloth of the injured and he had not obtained any entry register of the hospital at Ramgarh where the injured was treated. It is further submitted that P.W.-5 and the victim has not disclosed before the police as to who had assaulted the informant and the name of the appellant was given on suspicion. It is further submitted that the appellant was on bail all along during trial and he has remained in jail custody after conviction and it is admitted land dispute, which is a case of admitted by P. W.-4, the informant and the P.W.-5, the injured, and as such, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail. It is submitted that P.W.-5, the victim had identified the appellant for assaulting him. It is further submitted that P. W. -4, who is the informant of this case, also named this appellant for causing injury on the neck of his father by this appellant. It is submitted that even the doctor, who was examined as P.W.-7, has proved the injury report and has stated that injury was found on the neck.

6. From perusal of the Lower Court Records and considering the submissions of learned counsel for the both the sides, it would appear from the evidence of P.W.-7, the Doctor, who had treated the injured, P. W.-5 namely Kanchan Mahto, but Ext. -3 i.e. the

injury report shows that no such date for entering for admitting to hospital or discharge from the hospital. It also reveals that description of injury on neck has not been mentioned by the doctor. Ext.-3 is the injury report, but it has not been given specific date by the doctor. It also appears from the evidence of P.W.-4 and P.W.-6 during their respective examination in-chief and cross- examination that both the sides are own gotias and the appellant is the uncle of the informant and own brother of injured P.W.-5. It also reveals that I.O. has not obtained any paper with regard to entry and discharge of the injured from the K.G. Hospital, Ramgarh. It would also appear that P.W.-5 injured has made improvement during proved his evidence from the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C.

7. On consideration of the aforesaid fact, during pendency of this Criminal appeal, the appellant, Hakim Mahto is directed to be released on bail on 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, Ramgarh, passed in S. T. No. 186 of 2015 corresponding to G. R. No. 1173 of 2014 arising out of Patratu (Barkakana) P. S. Case No. 66 of 2014.

8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1039 of 2022 stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Kamlesh/