Nage @ Nageshwar Uraon vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1985 Jhar

                                   -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    I.A. No.3430 of 2022
                            In
             Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1011 of 2019

     1.   Nage @ Nageshwar Uraon
     2.   Jageshwar Uraon
     3.   Ranthu Uraon
     4.   Jago Uraon
     5.   Dilip Uraon
     6.   Rajesh Uraon
     7.   Kule @ Khule Uraon                ......      Appellants
                            Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                 .....   Respondent
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Appellants : Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the State : Mr. M. K. Mishra, A.P.P.

---------

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

---------

               th
15/Dated: 13        May, 2022
I.A. No.3430 of 2022

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of ad-interim bail, to the appellant Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 namely, Nage @ Nageshwar Uraon, Jageshwar Uraon, Ranthu Uraon, Jago Uraon, Rajesh Uraon and Kule @ Khule Uraon respectively, during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 22.08.2019 and order of sentence dated 27.08.2019, passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Chatra, in S.T. No.108 of 2016, whereby all the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- each with a default clause.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the allegation is general and omnibus in nature upon all the accused persons and they have been convicted by the trial court under Section 304 Part II of the

Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted that a scuffle had taken place between the parties in a marriage ceremony. It has been submitted that the appellants have remained in custody for more than three years. It has further been submitted that in similar circumstances, the conviction has been suspended in the case of Dilip Uraon, i.e., appellant No.5. On the above facts, prayer for suspension of the appellants has been made.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.

5. Considering the above facts and the fact that the appellants have remained in custody for more than three years, I am inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the appellant Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Chatra, in Sessions Trial No.108 of 2016, subject to the condition that the appellant Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 will remain present before the Court when the appeal is taken up for hearing, failing which their bail shall be cancelled.

6. I.A. No.3430 of 2022 stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-