Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Yadav @ Rajeshwar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 402 of 2021
....
Rajesh Yadav @ Rajeshwar ...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedi, Adv.
For the State : Ms Kumari Rashmi,A.P.P.
.....
I.A. No. 6811 of 2021
06/12.05.2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the
State.
2. The present Interlocutory Application No. 6811 of 2021 has been
filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, during
pendency of the present criminal appeal.
3. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment
of conviction dated 05.08.2021 and order of sentence dated 07.08.2021
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Chatra in connection with
S. T. No. 19 of 2021 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the
offence under Sections 147/323/341/342/452/506 and has been sentenced
to undergo R.I. for a period of one year under Section 147 of the Indian
Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one
year under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced
to undergo S.I. for a period of one month under Section 341 of the
Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of
six months under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five(5) years and to pay fine of
Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment further sentenced to undergo R.I.
for a period of one months and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a
period of one year under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and all the
sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
4. The appellant was tried in S. T. No. 19 of 2021 by the by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-V, Chatra along with Dilchand Ganjhu,
however, the said Dilchand Ganjhu was acquitted by the learned Court
below while convicting the present appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the
appellant in the FIR and he has been shown to be the member of the TPC
and for assaulting the informant and his family members, but as a matter
of fact, the informant was mainly aggrieved from the TPC member on
account of kidnapping the husband of the Bhabho of the informant, which
has come in the evidence during the trial. It is submitted that the appellant
and the informant are own gotias and there is land dispute between them.
It is submitted that P.W.-1, Ashok Yadav (informant) in para-8 and 9 and
P.W.-2, Arvind Yadav during cross-examination in para-8 and P.W.-3,
Anawati Devi have stated and admitted that there is land dispute
between both the parties. It is submitted that the informant and his family
members as well as the informant and the appellant have the common
field/land and taking advantage of animosity with TPC members with the
family members of the informant, the present appellant has been
implicated in this case, who is well known to him and has identified by
the informant. It is submitted that appellant had earlier been in custody
from 18.11.2020 till 25.06.2021 and thereafter he is in custody from the
date of conviction i.e. 05.08.2021 till date i.e. total nine months and as
such, his total period of custody is for about fifteen months and as such,
he may be enlarged on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
bail. It is submitted that the appellant is the active member of the
extremists group of TPC. It is submitted that P.W.-1, Ashok Yadav
(informant) and P.W.-2, Arvind Yadav and P.W.-3, Anawati Devi had
identified the appellant for assaulting the informant. It is submitted that
the appellant has confessed his guilt before the police and as such, prayer
for bail is fit to be rejected.
7. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the both the sides.
8. It transpires from the FIR that the informant and his family
members were assaulted by 17 extremists and the name of the appellant
has been shown there. Although it has come to the evidence of P.W.-1,
Ashok Yadav (informant) and P.W.-2, Arvind Yadav (Son of the
informant) and P.W.-3, Anawati Devi that the informant has also
identified the appellant, but at the same time during cross-examination he
stated that they are gotias and they were having common field i.e. land
and they are having land dispute and they have given Rs. 14,000/- to the
appellant at the instance of TPC and as such, this case has been instituted
against him also. It also transpires that the appellant has also been
acquitted for the charges under Sections 148/323/307/504 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 17(1) and (2) of the CLA Act by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-V, Chatra i.e. learned trial Court below.
9. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of this case and
considering the fact that the informant's and the appellant are own gotias
and well known to each other and also considering the fact that there is
probability of presence of appellant at the time of occurrence, during
pendency of this Criminal Appeal, the appellant, Rajesh Yadav @
Rajeshwar is directed to be released on bail on 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-V, Chatra in
connection with S. T. No. 19 of 2021, subject to the condition that both
the bailor must be own relative of the appellant and the appellant shall
remain present at the time of final hearing of the present appeal, failing
which the bail of the appellant is liable to be cancelled and the appellant
shall not disturb the informant and family members with regard to the
land in question, failing with the prosecution will be at liberty to point out
this fact before the Court.
10. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6811 of 2021 stands allowed and disposed
of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
