Jharkhand High Court
Murari Yadav @ Murari Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 February, 2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No.1184 of 2022
In
Cr. Revision No.889 of 2020
1. Murari Yadav @ Murari Mahto
@ Murli Mahto
2. Prakash Yadav @ Prakash Mahto...... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Amrit Mahto ..... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. S. K. Deo, Advocate
For the State : Mr. A. K. Tiwari, A.P.P
---------
07/Dated: 23rd February, 2022
I.A. No.1184 of 2022
1. This interlocutory application has been filed for
suspension of sentence and grant of ad-interim bail to the
petitioners, during the pendency of the revision application.
2. The present revision application has been filed against
the judgment dated 28.09.2020, passed by the court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge - V, Deoghar, in Criminal
Appeal No.55 of 2014, affirming the judgment of conviction
dated 30.05.2014 and order of sentence dated 30.06.2014
passed by the court of learned 1 st Assistant Sessions Judge,
Deoghar, in Sessions Case No.308 of 2006, arising out of
Sarwan (Sonaraithari) P.S. Case No.50 of 2006 (G.R. Case
No.465 of 2006), whereby the petitioners have been convicted
for the offence under Sections 307/34, 324/34 and 341/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and for the offence under Sections
307/34 of the I.P.C, the petitioners have been sentenced for
five years of rigorous imprisonment, two years rigorous
imprisonment for the offence under Sections 324/34 of the
I.P.C., and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Sections
341/34 of the I.P.C along with default clause.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
revisionists that the revisionists have remained in custody for
about 14 months, i.e., more than one years. The F.I.R has
been lodged on 07.06.2006 alleging that an altercation had
taken place while ploughing the field. Depositions of the
witnesses suggest that there is dispute regarding ownership
of the plot and there is no finding by the court below that who
was the aggressor and who is in the possession of the land.
Referring to the injury, it has been submitted that no offence
under Sections 307/34 of the I.P.C is made out rather at the
best it is the accusation under Sections 334 & 308 of the
I.P.C.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P., has opposed the
prayer for bail.
5. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the period of custody, I am inclined to suspend
the sentence and enlarge the petitioners on bail, during the
pendency of the revision application, on their furnishing bail
bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1st
Assistant Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in connection with
Sessions Case No.308 of 2006, arising out of Sarwan
(Sonaraithari) P.S. Case No.50 of 2006 (G.R. Case No.465 of
2006).
6. I.A. No.1184 of 2022 stands allowed.
Cr. Revision No.889 of 2020
1. Admit.
2. Issue notice upon O.P. No.02, for which the requisites
etc. under the registered cover with A/D as well as under
ordinary process, must be filed within two weeks.
3. The lower court record has already been received.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
