Jharkhand High Court
Arbind Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 866 of 2018
----
1. Arbind Mandal
2. Mala Devi --- --- Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kailash Prasad Deo
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P.
---
04/24.02.2022 Heard learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. Lalit Yadav and
learned A.P.P. Ms. Priya Shrestha on the renewed prayer for suspension of
sentence of the appellant no.1 made through I.A. No.1090 of 2022.
Appellants are husband and mother-in-law of the deceased who
along with three others faced trial in Sessions Trial No.55/2016 and
amalgamated Sessions Trial No.100/2017. Appellants have been convicted for
the offence punishable under Sections 304B and 201 of the I.P.C. read with
Section 34 of the I.P.C. while other three were acquitted by the impugned
judgment dated 22nd June 2018 rendered by the court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 304B
of the I.P.C. and further rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of
Rs.5,000/- each under Section 201 of the I.P.C. with a default sentence vide
impugned order of sentence dated 26th June 2018.
Earlier the prayer for suspension of sentence made by appellant
no.1 was rejected vide order dated 3rd July 2019 taking note of the materials
on the lower court records and materials on record while bail was granted to
the appellant no.2. Learned counsel for the appellant has renewed the prayer
for suspension of sentence primarily on the ground of period of custody of
more than 5 years undergone by the appellant against the sentence of 10 years
under Section 304B of the I.P.C. It is submitted that P.W.7, informant and
father of the deceased, was declared hostile and so was P.W.6. P.W.3, 4 and 5
have also not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, appellant may
be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the materials relied upon from the lower court
records and the fact that the appellant has undergone more than 5 years of
custody since 14th February 2017 till date.
Having regard to the period of custody of more than half of the
sentence undergone by the appellant no.1, we are inclined to grant the
privilege of suspension of sentence to him during pendency of the appeal.
Accordingly, appellant no. 1 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Deoghar in connection with Sessions Trial No.55 of 2016 and amalgamated
Sessions Trial No.100 of 2017 with the condition that one of the bailors shall
be the deponent of this interlocutory application whose photo copy of the
U.I.D. Card enclosed to the I.A. be sent to the learned trial court for
identification at the time of the release. Appellant as well as his bailors shall
not change their addresses and mobile numbers, if any, without prior
permission of the learned trial court. I.A. No.1090/2022 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J)
Shamim/
