Jharkhand High Court
Shakur Minya @ Sakur Mian @ Md. ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 56 of 2022
....
Shakur Minya @ Sakur Mian @ Md. Sakur ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the petitioner : Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P. D. Agrawal, Spl.P.P.
.....
I.A. No. 11784 of 2022
06/23.12.2022 The Criminal Revision No. 56 of 2022 has been filed on
behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 12.07.2018
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2014 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palamau at Daltonganj by which
the Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2014 filed on behalf of the
petitioner was dismissed by affirming the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 25.09.2014 passed by Shri
Manoranjan Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj in
connection with G. R. No. 2300 of 2010 corresponding to T.R. No.
847 of 2014 arising out of Lesliganj P. S. Case No. 79 of 2010
by which the petitioner was convicted for the offences under
Sections 279/337/304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for a period of three(3) months for the offence under
Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for a period of three(3) months for the offence under Section
337 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a
period of two(2) years for the offence under Section 304-A of the
Indian Penal Code respectively.
All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. I.A. No. 11784 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail to the petitioner, during pendency of the
Criminal Revision Application.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
4. It is submitted that earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner
was rejected with the observation "At This Stage" by this Court
vide order dated 15.06.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 56 of 2022
and liberty was given to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail
after six months. It is submitted that the judgments and order
passed by the learned Court below are not sustainable in the eyes
of law. It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent. It is submitted
that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. It is submitted that
there are contradictory statements of the witnesses and P.W.s were
not sure that how many passengers were sitting in the vehicle. It is
submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 06.01.2022 and as
such he may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the prayer of bail and has submitted that the case was
instituted under Sections 279/337/338/304-A of the Indian Penal
Code and the petitioner was the driver of the Tempo and as such,
prayer for bail may be rejected.
6. Perused the Lower Court records and considered the
submissions of both the sides.
7. It transpires from the FIR that the Tempo, which was
driven by the petitioner, had turtled, which resulted into death of
the passenger. It also transpires that the petitioner is in custody
since 06.01.2022.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
also considering the period of custody, during pendency of this
Criminal Revision Application, the petitioner - Shakur Minya @
Sakur Mian @ Md. Sakur is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Shri
Manoranjan Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj/ or
his Successor Court in connection with G. R. No. 2300 of 2010
corresponding to T.R. No. 847 of 2014 arising out of Lesliganj
P. S. Case No. 79 of 2010, subject to the condition that one of the
bailor must be own relative of the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, I.A. No. 11784 of 2022 is allowed and
stands disposed of.
Cr. Rev. No. 56 of 2022
10. Put up this case under the heading "For Hearing" as per
seriatim.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
