Jharkhand High Court
Rajivjaiswal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 57 of 2023
------
RajivJaiswal ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P.
--------
Order No. 03 / Dated: 5th April, 2022
I.A. No. 2990 of 2023
Heard learned Sr. counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the
State.
Learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that
one Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 2990 of 2023 has been filed with a
prayer to enlarge the appellant on bail during the pendency of this appeal, which
has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 08.12.2022 and the
order of sentence dated 13.12.2022 passed by the Court of learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge-IV-cum- Special Judge, M.P./ M.L.As' Cases,
Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 347 of 2021, arising of Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 79 of 2016,
corresponding to G.R. No. 984 of 2016, whereby and where under the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and to
undergo rigorous imprisonment of 2 years, under Section 332/149 of the Indian
Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 2 years, under Section
332/149 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years
and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, under Section 307/149 of Indian Penal Code and to
undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and under
Section 27 of the Arms Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and to pay
fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of each of the fine, the appellant was
directed to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months fine and all the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 57 of 2023
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the allegation against
the appellant was that he alongwith the co-accused persons were leading a
procession under the banner of Nagrik Chetana Manch, Gola making protest for
their legal demand agitating slogans against the company IPL Plant, who is said to
have acquired the land in the locality for running the company and during the
course of the procession it is alleged that 300 to 400 persons were present in the
procession and who became violent then the police charged lathi and also opened
fire due to which several persons got injured and two persons are said to have died
by the police firing, which is the admitted case of the prosecution.
Further, it has been submitted that this appellant is said to have opened fire
from the rifle upon the Government officials but neither the rifle is said to have
been recovered nor any person is said to have been injured by the fire arm gun used
by this appellant. Further it has also been pointed out that altogether 17 persons
have been injured and all have got simple injury except one the informant Dinesh
Prasad Surin i.e. P.W.-14 (informant) who has not supported the case of the
prosecution in his deposition during the course of trial and he has been declared
hostile.
Further it has also been submitted that the doctors who are said to have
examined the informant i.e. P.W.-14 and prepared the injury report has not been
examined and rather some another doctors have been examined who found the
injury to be grievous in nature and thus the accused-appellant has been debarred
from his valuable rights to draw the attention of the concerned doctor about the
nature of injury in order to determine as to whether the injury inflicted upon the
injured P.W.-14 was grievous in nature or not and further the injury is also not said
to have been inflicted by fire arm gun whereas it is the case of the prosecution
against this appellant that he had used fire arm gun to cause injury but there is no
injury of fire arm gun upon any one of the injured person and thus the case of the
prosecution gets totally falsified.
Further it has been submitted that the appellant is in jail for more than seven
months and the maximum conviction is five years and this appeal is not likely to be
heard in near future and therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 57 of 2023
On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed the contentions
raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that several persons were injured in
the mob agitation which is said to have been led by this appellant alongwith the
co-accused persons and therefore, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case.
In the light of the aforesaid persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the
appellant, it is found just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail and
accordingly the appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail by furnishing bail bond
of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each, to the satisfaction of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IV-
cum- Special Judge, M.P./ M.L.As' Cases, Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 347 of 2021,
arising of Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 79 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 984 of
2016, subject to the conditions as stated u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. and also subject to the
further condition that the entire fine amount as imposed by the learned Court below
under different heads / counts are deposited by the appellant without being
prejudice to his right of defence.
Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 2990 of 2023 gets
disposed of.
This appeal is admitted for hearing.
The Lower Court Records have already been received.
Let this case be posted alongwith Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 56 of 2023
under the heading "for hearing" in seriatim
J.Minj (Navneet Kumar, J.)
