Jharkhand High Court
Dharmachandi Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 November, 2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No.7864 of 2022
In
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.603 of 2022
1. Dharmachandi Mahto
2. Jhaman Mahto @ Indradev Mahto
3. Virendra Mahto @ Birendra Mahto
4. Jivadhan Mahto ...... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. G. K. Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.
---------
rd
04/Dated: 03 November, 2022
I.A. No.7864 of 2022
1. The present interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 389(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of
sentence and grant of ad-interim bail, to the appellants, during the
pendency of the appeal.
2. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction dated 02.07.2022 and order of sentence dated
12.07.2022, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge - VI, Hazaribag, in S.T. No.251 of 2012, whereby the
appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section
304(B) read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and the
maximum sentence imposed upon them is rigorous imprisonment
for seven years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each with a default
clause.
3. It appears that for the offence of dowry death, F.I.R was
lodged and after investigation, the husband, the father-in-law and
the mother-in-law of the deceased have faced the trial and
accordingly they have been convicted and sentenced for rigorous
imprisonment for life. The present appellants have been
subsequently charged and they have faced the split up trial and
after conclusion of the trial they have been convicted for seven
years after conviction for the offence under Sections 304(B)/ 120(B)
of I.P.C.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellants that they are Mama Sasur and Fufa Sasur of the
deceased and they were not residing with the deceased and they
are not the close family members. It has further been submitted
that the father-in-law of the deceased has already been enlarged on
bail vide order dated 09.10.2020, passed in I.A. No.4706 of 2020,
filed in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.643 of 2019. On the above basis,
prayer for suspension of sentence has been made.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence.
6. Considering the fact that the father-in-law of the deceased
has already been enlarged on bail, I am inclined to suspend the
sentence and enlarge the appellants 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 Additional Sessions Judge - VI,
Hazaribag, in Sessions Trial No.251 of 2012, subject to the
condition that the appellants will remain present before the Court
when the appeal is taken up for hearing, failing which their bail
shall be cancelled.
7. I.A. No.7864 of 2022 stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
