Jharkhand High Court
Sugwa @ Sugiya Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 483 of 2019
With
I.A. No. 9132 of 2022
1.
Sugwa @ Sugiya Devi
2.
Kashinath Mahato
3.
Dilip Mahato
4.
Sunil Mahato ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
---
17/14.10.2022 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of
conviction dated 14.03.2019 and sentence dated 16.03.2019
pronounced by Additional Sessions Judge-IV at Dhanbad, whereby
and whereunder appellants have been convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the
offence u/s 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. It has been observed by the
learned court below that the period undergone by the convicts in
custody shall be set off from the period of sentence.
3. I.A. No. 9132 of 2022 has been filed for grant of bail to the
appellant Nos. 3 and 4 during the pendency of this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prayer
for suspension of sentence of the appellants was rejected by this court
vide order dated 27.11.2019. Learned counsel has also submitted that
so far as appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they have already been
released by the jail authorities themselves on 15th of August, 2022
considering their custody etc. therefore the present interlocutory
application is only with relation to appellants Nos. 3 and 4.
5. Learned counsel submits that as stated in paragraph 5 and 6, the
appellant No. 3 has completed the period of custody for about five
years out of seven years and appellant Nos. 4 has completed the
custody for more than 4 years and 8 months out of total period of
punishment of 7 years. The learned counsel submits that considering
the custody of appellant Nos. 3 and 4, they may be released on bail.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on
the other hand does not dispute the aforesaid submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellants, however he submits that the it is for
the court to take a call in the matter.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, though the
prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant Nos. 3 and 4 was
rejected earlier by this court, but considering the custody of the
appellant nos. 3 and 4 as stated aforesaid, and it appears that the
appellants have not been able to get a date fixed for final hearing of
this case , I.A. No. 9132 of 2022 seeking suspension of sentence is
hereby allowed and the appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to be
released on bail during the pendency of the appeal on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-five thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad in connection with Sessions
Trial No. 599 of 2013 on the following conditions:
(i) Both the bailors should be close relatives of the
appellants.
(ii) The appellants shall furnish their self-attested copy of the
Aadhar Card and mobile number before the learned court
below at the time of furnishing bail bond. The appellants
will not change their mobile number during the pendency
of the case without prior permission of the court.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court
concerned through FAX.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
