Chhatu Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 5050 Jhar

                                    -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   I.A. No.10465 of 2022
                          In
            Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.473 of 2022

    Chhatu Mahto                                  ......      Appellant
                               Versus
     1.   The State of Jharkhand
     2.   Aalo Devi                               ..... Respondents
                               ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. G. K. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, A.P.P.

For the Resp. No.02 : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate

---------

               th
07/Dated: 13        December, 2022
I.A. No.10465 of 2022

     1.   This      interlocutory   application   has   been   filed   for

suspension of sentence and grant of ad-interim bail, to the appellant, during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 07.02.2022 and order of sentence dated 10.02.2022, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge - 1st -cum- Special Judge SC/ST

-cum- FTC, Ramgarh, in SC/ ST Case No.23 of 2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 323/ 417 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and he has been sentenced to undergo maximum sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sections 3(i)(v) of the SC/ ST (POA) Act, along with fine and default clause.

It appears that initially the appellant has been charged for the offence under Sections 323/34, 341/34, 436/34, 427/34, 376, & 420 of the I.P.C and Sections 3 (i)(v), 3(i)(x), 3(2) (iv)of the SC/ ST (POA) Act, but he has been convicted for the offence under Sections 323/ 417 of the I.P.C and Section 3(i)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the allegation both the parties were in live-in relationship for last twelve years, i.e., from the year 2002 to 2017 while the present F.I.R has been lodged in the year 2014 due to differences between them. The charge

under Section 376 of the I.P.C has not been proved in the trial, but he has been convicted for false promise of marriage. It has further been submitted that he has remained in custody for one year out of four years maximum sentence as awarded. On the above basis, suspension of sentence and grant of ad- interim bail to the appellant has been prayed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the victim/ respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.

5. Considering the nature of allegation and the long relationship between the parties and the fact that the appellant has remained in custody for one year, I am inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the appellant 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 Additional Sessions Judge - 1st -cum- Special Judge SC/ST -cum- FTC, Ramgarh, in SC/ ST Case No.23 of 2015, subject to the condition that the appellant will remain present before the Court when the appeal is taken up for hearing, failing which his bail shall be cancelled.

Further, considering the fact that the parties were in live-in relationship and out of that relationship one male child has taken birth, the appellant is directed to deposit the 50% of the total fine amount, i.e., quantified to Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand), in the court below. The amount, so deposited by the appellant, must be released in favour of the victim.

6. I.A. No.10465 of 2022 stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-