Ram Chandra Ram @ Manjhi Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4443 Jhar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.199 of 2022
                                 ----

1. Ram Chandra Ram @ Manjhi Ram

2. Bikash Ram

3. Pramila Devi @ Geeta Devi @ Pramila

4. Mukesh Ram @ Mukiya .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

----

For the Appellants : Mr. Vishal Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. For the Informant Mr. Awnish Shankar, Adv.

Mr. Atul Kr. Tiwari, Adv.

----

th 06/Dated: 07 November, 2022

I.A. No.9743 of 2022

1. This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant no.1 Ram Chandra Ram @ Manjhi Ram under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for suspension of sentence and releases him on bail, during pendency of the instant appeal.

2. Earlier the prayer for bail of the appellant no.1 has been rejected vide order dated 27.06.2022 on merit.

3. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 307/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction dated 23.02.2022 and order of sentence dated 26.02.2022 by which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. in default thereof, further to undergo three months simple imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 341/34 of the IPC in default thereof, to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Sessions Trial Case No.17 of 2016.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant no.1 that he has remained in custody for about 14 months and the maximum punishment is five years. On the above basis, prayer for suspension of sentence has been made.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that there is specific allegation against this appellant for sprinkling petrol and putting the informant on fire.

6. Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to re-consider the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of ad-interim bail to the appellant no.1. Accordingly, the present interlocutory application is, hereby, rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Amar/-