Rakesh Pandey @ Rakesh Kr. Pandey @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 160 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 191 of 2018
     Rakesh Pandey @ Rakesh Kr. Pandey @ Pappu Pandey   --- --- Appellant
                                    Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                             --- --- Respondent
                              .......

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

Through Video Conferencing

For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate, Anurag Kashyap, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.

10/25.01.2022 Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. A.K. Kashyap for the appellant and learned A.P.P. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha on the renewed prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant made through I.A. No. 360 of 2022.

The appellant along with five others stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364A r/w 34 of the I.P.C by the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 705 of 2014 by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII, Ranchi, while accused Sarwajit Tiwary has been acquitted of the charge. Appellant along with five others have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.15,000/- each and a default sentence each by the impugned order of sentence dated 04.12.2017 Earlier the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant was rejected twice on merits after consideration of the materials on the lower court record vide order dated 23.07.2018 and 24.10.2019 by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court. Thereafter, appellant preferred S.L.P. No. 1465 of 2020 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the refusal of his prayer for suspension of sentence, which was rejected on 18.02.2020. Thereafter, once again the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 18.08.2021. Learned counsel for the appellant has renewed the prayer primarily on the ground of custody since the appellant has been in jail from 14.08.2014. He has been suffering life conviction under Section 364 A of the I.P.C.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the background materials referred to above and

also the grounds for refusal of prayer for suspension of sentence. Earlier the prayer for suspension of sentence has been rejected on merits and no fresh grounds have been made out on the part of the appellant. So far as period of custody is concerned, appellant has completed custody for about 7 ½ years against the conviction of life under Section 364 A of the I.P.C. Therefore, we do not feel inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail on the ground of custody undergone till date.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 360 of 2022 is rejected.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) A.Mohanty